|
|
|
|
|
|
by smosher
5155 days ago
|
|
|
Hawkins' reasoning struck me as very misguided. I'm not an expert in the field and I'm not up to speed on what Numenta's current form is, but his concept of creating half an intelligence has always offended my sensibilities. I wanted to say something useful here but I don't know enough about what Numenta's actually doing. I know much of what is not being done, and it basically amounts to willful ignorance in my opinion. Edit: let me revise this, since I'm being voted down with prejudice anyway. Hawkins has stated very clearly that the only valuable part of the brain to ML/AI research is the neocortex. He's plainly wrong, it should be easy enough to understand this is the final touch on the evolution of our brains—the least important in a survival sense. More directly, without a motivating force there is no opportunity for an intelligent system. My gut reaction is that the whole thing is a fraud, but I have up to now refrained from using such terms because I'd rather not argue from a position of ignorance (there are things I don't know about Numenta.) On the other hand, it's obvious this subject brings about the ignorant, so I'd like to take the opportunity to address these people: you are deluding yourselves, just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true. (That goes double for you Jeff.) Have a nice day. |
|
|
I think the main argument is that there is reason to think that there is a single "neo-cortical algorithm", that it is somewhat simple compared to the massive complexity of the brain as a whole and that if you can understand this algorithm, there will be massive payoffs.
That argument too might be misguided but it seem like a pretty focused idea for going from brain to artificial intelligence (a problem where one would expect that simplifying approaching would be quite necessary).
I'm more doubtful of his idea that the neocortex is primarily about prediction. I suspect that's only one aspect.