Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Philosophically, why should it be the case that aggregations of statistical calculations (one way of viewing the matrix multiplications of ANNs) can approximate intelligence? I think it's because our ability to know reality is inherently statistical.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting macro scale, i.e. not quantum, reality itself is probabilistic, only that our ability to interpret perception of it and model it is statistical. That is, an observation or a sensor doesn't actually tell you the state of the world; it is a measurement from which you infer things.

Viewed through this standpoint, maybe the Game of Life and other discrete, fully-knowable toy problem worlds aren't as applicable to the problem of general intelligence as we imagine. A way to put this into practice could be to introduce a level of error in both the hand-tuned and learned networks' ability to accurately measure the input states of the Life tableau (and/or introduce some randomness in the application of the Life rules on the simulation), and see whether the superiority of the hand-tuned network persists or if the learned network is more robust in the face of uncertain inputs or fallible rule-applications.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: