Everything is learned -- it's "merely" a question of the timescale of learning
-
-
-
If you call evolution by natural selection 'learning', then learning is so broad it's meaningless.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Evolution generates new individuals based on old individuals modifying them ~randomly then selects the best ones and repeats. Mostly like trial and error.
-
No. Individuals are vehicles for the replication of genes within a specific niche. There are no 'best oness', evolution is not a zero sum game. Unlike learning, the criteria for selection is not predetermined by some objective function, but instead exploits the adjacent possible
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
see my book Kluge on this topic = imperfections in human cognitive system that derive from accidents in evolution, a la Gould’s classic Panda’s Thumb
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There's no place for "nature" in "artificial" intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s not the problem either, bc we’re not close to the stage where speed per se is an issue in GAI- we can’t do the basics with any amt of computing power, though we can do many even perceptual things far better than humans...Innateness involves game rules, not just knowledge.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sure- a superset of learning including instinct?- fine, but what does that conflation buy us in GAI? If innateness is more like Chomsky’s miraculous black box, conflation is less imp than contrast and the related, ongoing search for Corpus Callosum-type interaction/synthesis.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.