If you're interested just read any basic cogsci introductory book. The problem is that computer science is integral but sadly many don't
Also no theory attached to the brain and yet the model captures human vision computations.
-
-
But they don't really have "no idea". That's just a turn of phrase. They do understand basic principles of CNN, just not how it all fits >
-
<That's true of all model authors to varying degrees, just more extreme with DNN authors. E.g. my comp neuro. models still produce surprises
-
These people aren't in cogsci. But I have a feeling we use understand and theory differently.
-
Some of the best (in terms of classification accuracy) models are just "add more layers". Eventually this heuristic might not help. Why?
-
That lack of understanding doesn't make then atheoretical, IMO. Noone understands all implications of their own models.
-
I think we're disagreeing and agreeing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps we do. To me a theory is any simplified description of a more complex system. I think that is a powerful and unambiguous definition.
-
Once I adopted it, philosphy of science and how I do it became much more clear.
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.