Matt Mahoney wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Starglider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:21:45 AM
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
What I'm not sure about is that you gain anything from 'neural' or
'brainlike' elements at all. The brain should not be put on a pedestal.
I think you're right. A good example is natural language. Neural networks are
poor at symbolic processing. Humans process about 10^9 bits of information
from language during a lifetime, which means the language areas of the brain
must use thousands of synapses per bit.
Neural networks are *not* poor at symbolic processing: you just used
the one inside your head to do some symbolic processing.
And perhaps brains are so incredibly well designed, that they have
enough synapses for thousands of times the number of bits that a
language user typically sees in a lifetime, because they are using some
of those other synapses to actually process the language, maybe?
Like, you know, rather than just use up all the available processing
hardware to store language information and then realize that there was
nothing left over to actually use the stored information .... which is
presumably what a novice AI programmer would do.
Richard Loosemore
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
