Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

Bill Gates told a German newspaper that GPT5 wouldn't be much better than GPT4: "there are reasons to believe that we have reached a plateau" [N] (www.handelsblatt.com)

submitted 11 months ago by we_are_mammals@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] venustrapsflies@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Real brains aren't perceptrons. They don't learn by back-propagation or by evaluating performance on a training set. They're not mathematical models, or even mathematical functions in any reasonable sense. This is a "god of the gaps" scenario, wherein there are a lot of things we don't understand about how real brains work, and people jump to fill in the gap with something they do understand (e.g. ML models).

[–] InterstitialLove@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Brains are absolutely mathematical functions in a very reasonable sense, and anyone who says otherwise is a crazy person

You think brains aren't turing machines? Like, you really think that? Every physical process ever studied, all of them, are turing machines. Every one. Saying that brains aren't turing machines is no different from saying that humans have souls. You're positing the existence of extra-special magic outside the realm of science just to justify your belief that humans are too special for science to ever comprehend

(By "is a turing machine" I mean that its behavior can be predicted to arbitrary accuracy by a turing machine, and so observing its behavior is mathematically equivalent to running a turing machine)