Come back when you have an algorithm that runs on a 100hz computer, that has zero starting knowledge of go, and can beat human players by simply learning about go.
I think this kind of reverence for the efficacy of the human brain is comical
Which is equivalent to saying “I think this kind of reverence for the efficacy of Google is comical”, and saying or implying you can obviously do better.
So yes, when there is a clear reigning champion, to say or imply it is ‘inefficient’ is nonsensical, and to make that claim strong requires something of substance, and not just congratulatory back patting and cryptic references to unrelated posts.
I think this kind of reverence for the efficacy of the human brain is comical
Which is equivalent to saying “I think this kind of reverence for the efficacy of Google is comical”, and saying or implying you can obviously do better.
Uh, wedrifid wasn’t saying that he could do better—just that it is possible to do much better. That is about as true for Google as it is for the human brain.
Uh, wedrifid wasn’t saying that he could do better—just that it is possible to do much better. That is about as true for Google as it is for the human brain.
It is only possible to do better than the brain’s learning algorithm in proportion to the distance between that algorithm and the optimally efficient learning algorithm in computational complexity space. There is mounting convergent independent lines of evidence suggesting (but not yet proving) that the brain’s learning algorithm is in the optimal complexity class, and thus further improvements will just be small constant improvements.
At that point we also have to consider that at the circuit level, the brain is highly optimized for it’s particular algorithm (direct analog computation, for one).
There is mounting convergent independent lines of evidence suggesting (but not
yet proving) that the brain’s learning algorithm is in the optimal complexity class,
and thus further improvements will just be small constant improvements.
This just sounds like nonsense to me. We have lots of evidence of how sub-optimal and screwed-up the brain is—what a terrible kluge it is. It is dreadful at learning. It needs to be told everything three times. It can’t even remember simple things like names and telephone numbers properly. It takes decades before it can solve simple physics problems—despite mountains of sense data, plus the education system. It is simply awful.
A simple computer database has perfect memorization but zero learning ability. Learning is not the memorization of details, but rather the memory of complex abstract structural patterns.
I also find it extremely difficult to take your telephone number example seriously, when we have the oral tradition of the torah as evidence of vastly higher memory capacity.
But thats a side issue. We also have the example of savant memory. Evolution has some genetic tweaks that can vastly increase our storage potential for accurate memory, but it clearly has a cost of lowered effective IQ.
It’s not that evolution couldn’t easily increase our memory, its that accurate memory for details is simply of minor importance (compared for pattern abstraction and IQ).
That something is not efficient doesn’t mean that there is currently something more efficient. And you precisely demand for particular proof that we all know doesn’t exist, which is rude and pointless whatever the case.
That something is not efficient doesn’t mean that there is currently something more efficient
Of course not, but if you read through the related points, there is some mix of parallel lines of evidence to suggest efficiency and even near-optimality of some of the brain’s algorithms, and that is what I spent most of the post discussing.
But yes, my tone was somewhat rude with the rhetorical demand for proof—I should have kept that more polite. But the demand for proof was not the substance of my argument.
But the demand for proof was not the substance of my argument.
Systematic elimination of obvious technical errors renders arguments much healthier, in particular because it allows to diagnose hypocritical arguments not grounded in actual knowledge (even if the conclusion is—it’s possible to rationalize correct statements as easily as incorrect ones).
(English usage: “allows” doesn’t take an infinitive, but a description of the action that is allowed, or the person that is allowed, or phrase combining both. The description of the action is generally a noun, usually a gerund. e.g. ”… in particular because it allows diagnosing hypocritical arguments …”)
You are “allowed to diagnose” and I may “allow you to diagnose” but I would “allow diagnosis” in general, rather than “allow to diagnose”. It is an odd language we have.
Demand for particular proof.
The original comment was:
Which is equivalent to saying “I think this kind of reverence for the efficacy of Google is comical”, and saying or implying you can obviously do better.
So yes, when there is a clear reigning champion, to say or imply it is ‘inefficient’ is nonsensical, and to make that claim strong requires something of substance, and not just congratulatory back patting and cryptic references to unrelated posts.
Uh, wedrifid wasn’t saying that he could do better—just that it is possible to do much better. That is about as true for Google as it is for the human brain.
It is only possible to do better than the brain’s learning algorithm in proportion to the distance between that algorithm and the optimally efficient learning algorithm in computational complexity space. There is mounting convergent independent lines of evidence suggesting (but not yet proving) that the brain’s learning algorithm is in the optimal complexity class, and thus further improvements will just be small constant improvements.
At that point we also have to consider that at the circuit level, the brain is highly optimized for it’s particular algorithm (direct analog computation, for one).
This just sounds like nonsense to me. We have lots of evidence of how sub-optimal and screwed-up the brain is—what a terrible kluge it is. It is dreadful at learning. It needs to be told everything three times. It can’t even remember simple things like names and telephone numbers properly. It takes decades before it can solve simple physics problems—despite mountains of sense data, plus the education system. It is simply awful.
learning != memorization
A simple computer database has perfect memorization but zero learning ability. Learning is not the memorization of details, but rather the memory of complex abstract structural patterns.
I also find it extremely difficult to take your telephone number example seriously, when we have the oral tradition of the torah as evidence of vastly higher memory capacity.
But thats a side issue. We also have the example of savant memory. Evolution has some genetic tweaks that can vastly increase our storage potential for accurate memory, but it clearly has a cost of lowered effective IQ.
It’s not that evolution couldn’t easily increase our memory, its that accurate memory for details is simply of minor importance (compared for pattern abstraction and IQ).
That something is not efficient doesn’t mean that there is currently something more efficient. And you precisely demand for particular proof that we all know doesn’t exist, which is rude and pointless whatever the case.
Of course not, but if you read through the related points, there is some mix of parallel lines of evidence to suggest efficiency and even near-optimality of some of the brain’s algorithms, and that is what I spent most of the post discussing.
But yes, my tone was somewhat rude with the rhetorical demand for proof—I should have kept that more polite. But the demand for proof was not the substance of my argument.
Systematic elimination of obvious technical errors renders arguments much healthier, in particular because it allows to diagnose hypocritical arguments not grounded in actual knowledge (even if the conclusion is—it’s possible to rationalize correct statements as easily as incorrect ones).
See also this post.
point taken
(English usage: “allows” doesn’t take an infinitive, but a description of the action that is allowed, or the person that is allowed, or phrase combining both. The description of the action is generally a noun, usually a gerund. e.g. ”… in particular because it allows diagnosing hypocritical arguments …”)
Thanks, I’m trying to fight this overuse of infinitive. (Although it still doesn’t sound wrong in this case...)
You are “allowed to diagnose” and I may “allow you to diagnose” but I would “allow diagnosis” in general, rather than “allow to diagnose”. It is an odd language we have.
Yes, “allowed to” is very different than “allow”.
Demand what? A proof that the brain runs at ~100hz? This is well known—wikipedia neurons.
Vladimir_Nesov is referring to this article.
I see. Unrelated argument from erroneous authority.