Random Thoughts Thread

[Husar]

Misrepresentative of the source, but these lines need to be saved for future:

"Neural networks are to actual neurons what astrology is to astronomy."

"Any semblance of intelligence that emerges from AI applications will only be in the eye of the beholder."

That sounds a bit like "No one will ever need more than 640k of memory", which, as I heard, was also misrepresentative of what was actually meant.

[Montmorency]

That's a hoax quote, but a better comparison would be to "You can't keep your furniture on your hard drive", which hopefully no one ever needed to be told.

[Husar]

That's a hoax quote, but a better comparison would be to "You can't keep your furniture on your hard drive", which hopefully no one ever needed to be told.

Ah, yes, fully made up, must have mixed something up.
Not sure about the furniture one, or how it relates to the others. Are you saying in the future it may be possible to keep furniture on your harddrive because matter is energy and energy is basically just information or something like that?

[Montmorency]

No, the idea being that thinking that a hard drive will allow you to store things other than what is exactly designed to be stored on a hard drive completely misunderstands the technology and the underlying physical principles.

[Husar]

No, the idea being that thinking that a hard drive will allow you to store things other than what is exactly designed to be stored on a hard drive completely misunderstands the technology and the underlying physical principles.

I'm not sure though whether the idea that artificial neural networks could one day be as good as biological ones is that crazy.

What sounds like a lack of understanding to me is calling them "neural networks" and "actual neurons", because to my understanding, "actual neurons" only work really well in a "neural network". If that's what you mean then I understand you, but your quote is also a bit off given that the quoted person is not the one making the mistake there.

[Montmorency]

If neurons act as a neural network, then a computer software designed for certain tasks and using select characteristics of some neurons will not behave as a "real" neural network.

Lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light, both because that's an inherent technological constraint and because the design of a lightbulb, being made for specific purposes, is very far from the design of a star.

[Husar]

If neurons act as a neural network, then a computer software designed for certain tasks and using select characteristics of some neurons will not behave as a "real" neural network.

But now you entered the constraints of using select characteristics and being designed for specific tasks.
My point was that these things are still in development, it seems strange to assume that they cannot one day do more.
And it doesn't just have to be software, apparently some chips are designed as neural networks: http://www.research.ibm.com/cognitiv...ic-chips.shtml

Lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light, both because that's an inherent technological constraint and because the design of a lightbulb, being made for specific purposes, is very far from the design of a star.

That is a very strange way to combine these arguments. The physical limitations are relatively obvious, but to say a light bulb is created for specific purposes that differ from those of a star is a bit odd given that the purpose of a light bulb is to replace the light of a star in places or at time where the light of a star is not readily available. Of course the design is different, having a star with the smallest working mass on our planet would be a bit much and also a bit hote, in fact one would rather say having our planet on such a star rather than the other way around.
The light bulb still allows you to see things the same way the star does, so with that purpose in mind, they both provide the same result.

If you are refering to the idea that pouring alcohol over a brain vs pouring it over a computer chip on which a neural network is running yields different results, well, whom are you quoting, Captain Obvious?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lightbulb technology will never be "as good as" a sun when it comes to generating light, both because that's an inherent technological constraint and because the design of a lightbulb, being made for specific purposes, is very far from the design of a star.

Guys, please look up the facts before making statements like these. Wikipedia gives a solar luminosity figure of 98 lumens per watt. I can buy a Cree LED 100W equivalent light bulb that out puts 1,650 lumens at 16.5 Watts. We are already there and the technology is still improving.