[digamber_kamat]

I just hate the headlines. In one of the first lectures in my post grad school our prof. told us how to critically examine research papers and claims. He said "If anyone claims to come up with something "revolutionary" you should be 10 times more skeptical about his claims. It is very likely that the person probably doesn't know what he is talking about."

Of course in these cases the news reporters are to be blamed than the scientists who worked on the proble,.

[Jun8]

"This model is inspired by the brain," is another red-flag to me.

[bbrtyth]

as were "more powerful than a Turing Machine" and "2^aleph_null possible behaviours" for me

[ppod]

Why? Biologically inspired ANNs have been around since the 50s. What's the problem with trying to model neural computation?

[Jun8]

Because it's such a buzzword and also the things that are used in practice are barely near modeling actual neural computation in the Drosophilia brain, let alone the human one (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-in-a-...).

[dacilselig]

I agree and it's a shame that writers feel like they need to use a hook to attract readers. However the reason I decided to post the article is because I was hoping that the users of hacker news could provide more input concerning the concepts discussed. As I would like to get more involved in AI, this article seem to be presenting a new method to look at it (At least I think it's new).

[akkartik]

As scott_s pointed out, the reporters have merely published what the university gave them: http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/149986...