No. Not with the architectures and approaches we currently use for machine learning, no matter how large you make the network nor the training set.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It isn't. Now you aren't talking about machine learning any more. Of course you can write a program to do do this. We know how to do that already. Computers can simulate physical reality. Just simulate a human. That's not ML. That's something else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No, it's a limitation of the structure. Current ML approaches are not general enough for that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yes, but now you're using mathematical equivalence arguments which are not useful. Yes, you can theoretically write a Brainfuck program to solve machine translation too (and AI and everything else). That's not a useful thing to say.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
The point is that ML approaches used today, used the way they're intended to be used, aren't going to solve AI and MT, because they can't do that without embedding a completely new approach into them that would make the entire ML part pointless.
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.