Strawman alert: To extent @tdietterich directed this line at me "I object to the argument that says “Today’s deep learning-based systems don’t exhibit genuine understanding, and therefore deep learning should be abandoned" it is an absolute misrepresentation of my position. 1/2https://twitter.com/tdietterich/status/1188551504388452352 …
-
-
Lack of shared definition makes this discussion a never-ending debate. If you define "deep understanding" as "human-level understanding", I guess that all AI algos (connectionist/symbolic/hybrid) will fall short of reaching this goal except if they model human brain mechanisms
-
Lack of reading hurts a lot too; we gave many examples in Chapter 4 of http://Rebooting.AI ; not one of my critics has actually gone through those examples and given a counteranalysis.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But few laymen understand the nuance of your argument. So you are as guilty as OpenAI in arriving at a conclusion with inadequate explanation
-
That's totally false. I have said the part about not abandoning deep learning part repeatedly in completely clear terms, one typical quote below, in this case from Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal; the entire book http://rebooting.ai is about deep understanding.pic.twitter.com/WBrlDnLlJo
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think this is an important point. Understanding comes in degrees. As a physicist I want to see a proper theory of scaling (with semantics, as
@SmartSpaceTime2 describes), we can note ideas in linguistics here. Without this, CS folks will forever be trapped in Boolean reasoningThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.