[Grothendank]

I feel like Lecun did a poor job of localizing the technique relative to any philosophy, or really explaining what it does for a nontechnical audience.

Saying he gives talks to philosophers, or saying this pushes philosophy to its limits doesn't fix the problem that lecun does a poor job - in this presentation - of philosophically motivating the proposal.

Perhaps I am wrong, and you can point out exactly how lecun explicates the philosophy in the presentation - perhaps it's really embedded in the maths, which I have not appreciated.

Appealing to lecun's authority won't fix the opacity of the presentation. But interpreting it can help! Are you up for it?

[elefanten]

I haven't even given it a deep read, so I unfortunately can't help shed any light. From my quick read, it didn't seem to me that laying out a digestible or rigorous philosophical perspective was really the point here. It seemed more directly biology inspired than philosophy.

I also don't seek to valorize Lecun. But he was a very early figure working on these technologies and from the beginning there was a neuroscience-inspired impetus to machine learning.

My point was sort of the opposite: that assuming Lecun doesn't clear the bar of having "exposure to the prior work on philosophy of mind and philosophy of language" seems like a weak bet.

edit: For clarity, I'm making the assumption that lifelong AI researchers who put time into learning from neuroscience... would also gravitate towards and seek to learn from the nearest relevant branches of philosophy.