I am irrationally excited about this. @fchollet has asked a set of fundamentally interesting questions with ARC and I'll be playing for fun! It's like Sudoku for AI addicts ;)
(n.b. I personally got many examples wrong - huzzah, a dataset where you question your own cognition 
)https://twitter.com/benhamner/status/1228070207400202240 …
-
I don't claim to have invented it. There's a long intellectual history behind ARC, which is retraced in the ARC paper. Imagine publishing a "RL for games" paper in 2016, then claiming credit for every subsequent paper doing RL for games. You have more productive things to do
What puzzles me though, is that you simultaneously claim credit for ARC and say that you profoundly disagree with every idea that ARC is built upon (in particular Core Knowledge). It's not coherent. It can't be both at the same time.
-
-
Did I say I disagree on using prior knowledge? In fact, that is exactly how we framed the problem. (Yes, some parts that people specify as core knowledge might not be innate, but that is just a quibble not a fundamental difference)pic.twitter.com/7o6rwLktkN
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In any case, I really want to know that ARC is not in any way an attempt go slight you or steal from you. You are simply not a factor in the things I've said and thought over the last 10 years. Not everything is about you.
-
Thanks for the patronizing reply
@fchollet. Thanks to you, I am reminded that the world doesn't revolve around me. - Show 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.