| >It's only incredibly effective in a static world. The world is not static nor is the human brain Neural nets aren't static. And yes they aren't great at online learning yet, but they are better than anything else and there is research into improving that. >Where's the intelligence? I'm not claiming a purely feed forward NN is intelligent, on it's own. But I do believe it could be extended and built upon to create one. And just because an algorithm is simple, does not mean it's not intelligent. There is zero proof that intelligence requires complex algorithms. It's just all the simple ones we've tried haven't worked, yet. >You're brute forcing the partial elements that contribute to a desired answer by slamming a cheese grater (NN) in forward and reverse flow ... hoping the important stuff sticks somewhere. Don't try to make it seem any more complex than that. Curve fitting at its finest. Constraint optimization. Gradient Descent. Regression. statistics all packaged up with fancy buzzwords. Yes and it's super effective. What's your problem? Many, many intelligent people have tried to come up with more effective algorithms. Besides minor tweaks and variations, nothing has done better. But by all means, invent one yourself if you can. >Which is why no one can tell you how NN works. The intelligent people who defined them are dead. Almost anyone can tell you how an NN works these days. And that's simply not true, many of the early researchers in NNs are now very respected and run their own labs. They are far from dead, they are publishing more research than ever. >So, Strong A.I ... AGI. I'm thinking those who have the best shot at it are people who know how NNs work on down to the mathematics and statistics, theory, philosophy and pseudoscience. Given this understanding, they have the ability to formulate new math/statistics/computational models and frankly whatever else it takes to represent a true form of intelligence. Oh I don't disagree. And I'm very familiar with how NNs work, I've even written code for them from scratch. And I don't believe AGI will be just a big regular NN, there need to be more insights into how intelligence works. But I believe NNs will be a big part of it. |
I see nothing in NN research that is quintessentially human (although there may be circuitry that is unique to humans that has not yet been revealed, this will most likely be uncovered by brain science rather than NN research IMO) and so I believe NNs are not the right level of approach to AI.