@GaryMarcus I would like in fact to hear a solid and testable proposal based on your 20 years of insisting how ML is not on the right track (as you said in an earlier tweet in this week), instead of another essay.https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1200613819518599169 …
-
-
All animals (bugs/birds/us) have many innate behaviors, eg nest building, mating, hunting, etc Your list seems very human-specific (eg "type-token") So for each animal you need to handcraft a new set of innate mechs? Or is there a common framework? Eg "genomic bottleneck"?
-
type-token is not human-specific; i review animal evidence up to 2000 in The Algebraic Mind.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I see the list having two problems (1) It doesn't identify intermediate animal cognition that may be necessary stepping stones and (2) it does not specify the mechanisms of how cognition develops these capabilities. Endpoints but no prescriptions on how to get there.
-
i review animal evidence in algebraic mind; agree it is prescription, do give some suggestions there.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
IMHO, the above specs are far more than just "search a different part of a model space". Problem with AI world - over selling existing models and theories of AI while completely ignoring a fairly human level specs for AI. Agreeing on specs is 1st step to finding testable solution
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Onlooker: "How do you propose to move the field forward?" Marcus: "I want a machine with the following abilities." Onlooker: "How do you propose to program those abilities?" Marcus: "Once we incorporate those abilities, the machine will be ready." Onlooker: "OK, Boomer."

Thanks. 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.