| > If this was 2025, this would be called machine learning because that's really what it was. It would be called "machine learning" because that's the buzzword du jour. > She was teaching the network to learn how to respond to nodes dropping out. That's just called "writing software" not "teaching the network." > Machine learning was definitely nonexistent at that point. Are you sure about that? > And yet, if you look at this 1964 paper, it's kind of unquestionably what it is. The document: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3103.html The claim: highly questionable. The paper is interesting in it's own right, but, to hype it up in this way is gross. |
> Are you sure about that?
Incredible statement to make, not only did machine learning exist, but neural networks existed!
The first perceptrons were built in the 50s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron
If you take a machine learning class, what is the most basic network you will probably build/learn about as an introduction? The MLP - multi-layer perceptron.
It's not even remotely obscure to know ML existed in the 50s and 60s.