Quote:
Originally Posted by andyh2000
[...] I don't know why you're so sure that artificial neural networks have nothing to do with natural ones. As far as I know that's explicitly where they got the idea from.
Andrew
|
On every topic I've seen discussed here on MR, the manner of Quoth's posts would have you believe they are an expert, privy to insider knowledge but apparently unable to share links to sources confirming it. (
I don't count the quotes from 1967 as particularly relevant to modern attempts at AI.)
The truth, I assume, is the more prosaic explanation that this is a mannerism. I don't imagine that Quoth is involved in recent (the last decade or so) work on AI and its related fields and so their strongly expressed opinion is based on much the same information that you or I (or ChatGPT) have access to. But pattern matching machines fed by different data are very likely to arrive at a different result, so declaring just one of them as absolute fact is problematic. Something we see demonstrated here on MR most days.
While it probably sounds like it, this isn't meant to be picking only on Quoth. There are many here that share this mannerism to a greater or lesser extent - and that probably includes me, on some days at least. Taking as fact anything that any of us post here, without independent substantiation, is about as smart as accepting anything that ChatGPT tells you. Most of our posts (should) carry an implicit "IMO whether it sounds like it or not".