Indeed, once upon a time, Hinton was interested in the same sorts of unification that I believe to be so important.https://twitter.com/danbri/status/1075653592596377600 …
-
Correction: you are attempting to hijack an opinion that Hinton was arguing for in 1991, while you were still in a larval stage. Hinton's view on the topic hasn't changed: how to implement reasoning with neurons and make it compatible with gradient-based learning.
This is a total misrepresentation of Hinton. Hinton was explicitly, then, trying to represent symbols & neurons in a common framework; he explicitly doesn’t want that now. You falsely equate “reasoning with neurons” (which we all agree brains do) with answer to symbol question
-
-
the preface to the book bears up very well (and deserves citing and quoting). Apologies for the hasty phonecam digitization, but again see https://twitter.com/danbri/status/1075686400031305729?s=19 …https://twitter.com/danbri/status/1075794211062968320?s=19 …
-
"Most connectionist researchers are aware of the gulf in representational power between a typical connectionist network and a set of statements in a language such as predicate calculus." [...]
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.