|
|
|
|
|
by ben_w
103 days ago
|
|
> Models today are static, and human brains don't learn or adapt themselves with anything close to backpropagation. While I suspect latter is a real problem (because all mammal brains* are much more example-efficient than all ML), the former is more about productisation than a fundamental thing: the models can be continuously updated already, but that makes it hard to deal with regressions. You kinda want an artefact with a version stamp that doesn't change itself before you release the update, especially as this isn't like normal software where specific features can be toggled on or off in isolation of everything else. * I think. Also, I'm saying "mammal" because of an absence of evidence (to my *totally amateur* skill level) not evidence of absence. |
|
The fundamental difference is that physical neurons have a discrete on/off activation, while digital "neurons" in a network are merely continuous differentiable operations. They also don't have a notion of "spike timining dependency" to avoid overwriting activations that weren't related to an outcome. There are things like reward-decay over time, but this applies to the signal at a very coarse level, updates are still scattered to almost the entire system with every training example.