excerpt from discussion with a friend who is writing about AI/MLpic.twitter.com/jC9rUjTnpR
Show this thread
-
This is not a philosophical argument, what is meant is simply "when a human solves problem A (e.g. image captioning), the corresponding ML algorithm solves problem B (the problem of mapping inputs to outputs over the training data), which has only very superficial overlap with A"
Similarly "they just do statistics" simply means "DL models rely on surface statistical characteristics" (lots of good papers about this) -- it's a statement on generalization.
-
-
i think “what does understanding mean?” is a philosophical question. are you saying: “understanding” implies an ability to generalize in a way that exceeds the capability of (or is somehow different from) our models right now?
-
Yes, but my point is just: these statements have a precise, well-scoped, factual meaning. They do not ask "what does it mean to understanding something?" (which would be philosophical, subjective question). They're scientific statements rather than philosophical positions.
End of conversation
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.