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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I lost what the argument was - can you summarise? Rev eng is not science? Or rev eng is not understanding?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @synapticlee @o_guest
I stopped when I realised I had no idea what the argument was.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drjtwit @synapticlee
I perhaps mistakenly thought given the context that the reference was being made to rev eng == cogsci
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Altho I'm kind of really exhausted (by life not this exchange specifically). I was stating how I see things, which it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
for context: my objection is that I think solving the problem with understanding NNs – recallhttps://twitter.com/o_guest/status/785731096080183296 …
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
is not solved by doing more software/hardware reverse/forward engineering but actually doing some science.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
oh that I'm happy to agree with! As for the dennett thing, not really - just some claim he made about linguistics
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
hahaha linguistics omg what a quagmire of poop
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.