[oldgradstudent]

> You would never listen to criticisms of a Physics theory from a Biologist and you shouldn't listen to criticisms of Neural Networks from a Psychologist.

Why? If their arguments are sound, why shouldn't we listen to them?

Where is this silly credentialism coming from?

[adamsmith143]

It's not credentialism at all, I said nothing about having a PhD in Physics for example. These theories are highly technical and if you aren't actively engaged in reading/replicating the most important papers and even lack the technical training to do so how can you really make coherent criticisms of them? It really beggars belief that a Biologist with nothing more than basic stats training can make sense of or poke holes in String Theory or Quantum Chromodynamics for example. Hence we get Marcus' pseduointellectual mush that passes for valid criticism of DL in the media or among other non-experts.

>Why? If their arguments are sound, why shouldn't we listen to them?

Generally arguments from non-experts like this fall into the "not even wrong" category and don't merit much attention.

[oldgradstudent]

Experts, always and everywhere, tend to massively exaggerate the scope of their expertise.

How exactly holding the SOTA record of any, or even all, machine learning task gives you any authority on true intelligence?

What gives LeCun any authority on true intelligence?

Even Lecun points out that his paper is not technical.

The only thing that matters is the of the argument.