Even in Artificial Intelligence, there's an ideological bias for nurture over nature. @GaryMarcus explains how @DeepMindAI spins its successes.https://medium.com/@GaryMarcus/deepminds-misleading-campaign-against-innateness-a2ea6eb4d0ba …
-
-
The true statement that evolution and learning are very similar in essential ways is different from the false statement that DNA has no effect on the performance of the learning algorithm of a brain.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not meaningless at all, it can be described formally. Try formal definitions, theorems, and proofs for a change.
-
I agree. Clearly there are important formal contrasts; knowledge instantiation can be generalized with types and boundary cond’s. H/w, s/w, and firmware, Spielke, definitions, contrasts; not straw-man comparisons about taking too long, not being directed, static vs dynamic, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What if you reverse that? You can say evolution = a process during which things that don't work get filtered out (and things that work, or don't work but also don't matter, stay). Can be said about learning - e.g. early language acquisition's trial and error for finding phonemes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is a great point, and I see many computer scientists trying to bring evolution within the realm of 'learning'. It's just not the same. Evolution is blind and does not try to optimise for an objective function for individuals or groups.
-
Objective function = fitness
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Evolution is probably learning of the Nature and not of the evolved beings. The Nature probably uses the evolved beings as media to store its data for future references. :)
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.