GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 17 2015,17:40) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 17 2015,17:21) | | Quote | | And somehow you managed to ignore the fact that the result of the incredibly expensive effort still turned out to be a big yawn in cognitive science. More like beginners work we have already seen before so many times it's not even news anymore: |
No, I caught that. However, we haven't seen work of this quality before, which is mostly why it is news, along with the unprecedented degree and originality of their ground-truthing. |
Who is "we"? The UK citizenry? |
And I have to add that I don't want to rain on your parade. I'm happy that at least that was accomplished.
The problem is with the UK headline news hoopla that makes it seem like UK scientists solved the great puzzle of cognitive science therefore no more work needs to be done, all other models including mine are no longer needed.
I was recently sharing ideas with someone who introduced their navigation related neural network models at the Kurzweil AI forum:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums....est-1-2
As can be seen from the discussion the more conventional models compliment and complement the model I have that expects being able to have high confidence fun chasing food around a shock zone arena that would curl your hair. What you are applauding has a place for it accounted for in the circuit, but these days that part alone does not make a model to get excited about. What has at least some of us experimenting onward has Sal working on it too, and I still not even explain the new illustration that appears to have a singularity of some kind at the end to those who get excited by that sort of hive-mind thing.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
