|
|
|
|
|
by jeanl
2426 days ago
|
|
I have a problem with how we use the word "thinking", usually implying something somewhat magical, or at least something more than the type of computations done in an algorithm or in a DNN. My belief is what we call "thinking" is nothing more than a (vastly more) complicated system doing the same kind of elementary calculation that are done in a neural net. There's nothing magical in our brain, it's entirely mechanical (chemical really), what we do when we "think" is, I think, comparable to what happen in a DNN (if not in scale at least in nature).
Consciousness and thinking are illusions created by our "mechanical" brains. People who say machines will never "think" the way we do are, I believe, mistaken. |
|
However, we're not even at a point yet where we can articulate specifically what that physical process _is_ - much less reproduce simplified artificial versions of it.
To imply we've somehow captured the essence of thinking in a DNN - and that it just needs to get bigger and more complex - that is exactly the type of thing this guy is mocking (deservedly so).