astonished that anyone knowledgeable could claim that neural nets are (obviously) an “abstraction of neural processing” when we don’t yet know how brains work. if you don’t know how Y works you can’t really speak with certainty about whether X is an abstraction of Y. Period.https://twitter.com/tyrell_turing/status/1200072223299657728 …
-
it feels like your arguments shift with every tweet why not just say that you think (A)NNs are a poor or flawed abstraction, perhaps even one that will be eliminated by scientific progress it is most peculiar to demand that they not even be called an abstraction
i never said that couldn’t be called an attempt at an abstraction; the question is whether we can *confidently assume* they are a bona fide abstraction.
-
-
i do see how my opening tweet could have been misread, esp if you didn’t read it relative to the tweet i responded to.
-
I believe I read the whole thread. And even a few pre-arxiv things ;) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2025900?seq=1 … came to mind
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe that's where we are talking past each other? I consider the Four Humors theory / https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism a terrible abstraction, but wouldn't bother disputing that it was an attempt at abstraction
-
i did clarify several times, most directly here: https://twitter.com/garymarcus/status/1200237465837064192?s=21 …https://twitter.com/garymarcus/status/1200237465837064192 …
- 2 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.