Is current AI just automated statistics or there is something more to it?

is current AI just automated statistics or there is something more to it?

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    think of neural nets as a useful way to encode (and learn the encoding of) arbitrary functions between things.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, except the useful part.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        neural nets aren't magic fairy dust that solve all your problems, but given the right tasks they are excellent tools

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        What would you consider a more useful way to encode arbitrary unknown, incomplete functions?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          by collapsing a wavefunction directly to states

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            And if you don't have a quantum computer?

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Then stop being poor.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Isn't that the world's fault for producing so few quantum computers?
                How do I make the world be less poor?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous
  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    hidden layers are ruled by complexity.
    pun intended

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not much more. It's kinds like just optimizing a function that can correlate a bunch of variables in order to classify whatever the thing with the variables is.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      composing multiple layers of linear and non-linear functions is a notable

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    What makes you think human (or animal) brains are any different?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      what makes you think they are? I don't know how human brain functions.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        They are not Turing Complete Machines.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Human brains are turing complete.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Prove it, gay. Run me a Turing tape in your head.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Turings original paper was coming up with a way to encapsulate how humans perform math with a machine.
              Turing machines are a philosophical thought experiment to mechanize human thought.
              I can imagine tapes moving back and forth, for precisely I can perform with pen and paper all processes a turing machine can even if in slow at it compared to a modern computer.
              You can too.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I can perform with pen and paper
                No paper allowed. Run me a Turing tape.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why does the machine get a tape but I dont?
                The machine is the head that reads in the symbols on the tape and slides back and forth. My mind is the head that reads in input from the tape (paper) and slides back and forth.
                I don't see the difference.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why does the machine get a tape but I dont?
                The machine has reliable RAM. The RAM is a part of that system. Are pen+paper parts of the system of your brain? Yes? Why, because you perceive it to be so? Fine: I build a robot that presses a button to turn on the PC. The robot is Turing-complete.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >with pen and paper
                In a Turing Complete Machine, the program and the data are all on the same machine, the fact that you need additional tools outside of your brain (such as pen and paper) proves it is not Turing Complete by definition.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                So a human + paper is turing complete but a human alone is not? What would we be then?

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >human + paper
                No because it is two different things, the memory space in a turing complete machine needs to be capable of holding both the program and the data simultaneously, just like regular twins with separate births can never be conjoined twins even though they have a little bit in common with conjoined twins when considered together.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              you don't need infinite tape gay, you need unbounded tape (add memory if necessary), since if your algorithm needs infinite tape it will never stop. Also it is instruction set that can be turing complete, not only the system.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't need infinite tape gay
                Okay. Now run me a Turing tape in your head. (No paper.)

                >it is instruction set that can be turing complete, not only the system.
                The system in this case is the brain, and I'm still waiting for you to run a Turing tape on it. Maybe your brain just doesn't run Turing tapes. I can give you a program in C++ instead -- they're Turing-equivalent.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you want, I can just imagine a tape in my minds eye and slide back and forth in that way.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If you want, I can just imagine a tape in my minds eye and slide back and forth in that way.
                Very well. Here's a Turing tape for fluid dynamics. Run it on your brain and tell me the results.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't need to run any tape in my brain, all I need to is to
                >simulate
                turing machine in my mind, which is easy.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Go ahead. Simulate me a machine that calculates fluid dynamics.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Turing tape
                If you taped together all your neurons and laid them end to end, they would encircle the universe 42 times.

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Statistics

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's an objectively observable difference between sufficiently complex automated statistics, and "something more"? It's "automated statistics" until it becomes complex enough that the "automated statistics" view is too low-level for any insight.

Your email address will not be published.