so figuring it out, yes, science. Rebuilding it, no.
but they would be the best model for a previous participant. ;)
-
-
I feel like you both (?) or at least just D thinks that this the first time I have come across this argument. It's a
-
I lost what the argument was - can you summarise? Rev eng is not science? Or rev eng is not understanding?
-
I stopped when I realised I had no idea what the argument was.
-
I perhaps mistakenly thought given the context that the reference was being made to rev eng == cogsci
-
Altho I'm kind of really exhausted (by life not this exchange specifically). I was stating how I see things, which it
-
seems to me is very diff to you both. That's great though as I also believe sci is not a monolith and shouldn't be.
-
for context: my objection is that I think solving the problem with understanding NNs – recallhttps://twitter.com/o_guest/status/785731096080183296 …
-
is not solved by doing more software/hardware reverse/forward engineering but actually doing some science.
- 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.