Friday, 16 June 2017
quote [ I knew the future would be shocking but this is a whole other level. ]
|
steele said @ 7:36pm GMT on 16th Jun
[Score:1 Interesting]
From the article:
If it were a prerequisite to understand the brain in order to interact with the brain in a substantive way, we’d have trouble. But it’s possible to decode all of those things in the brain without truly understanding the dynamics of the computation in the brain. Being able to read it out is an engineering problem. Being able to understand its origin and the organization of the neurons in fine detail in a way that would satisfy a neuroscientist to the core—that’s a separate problem. And we don’t need to solve all of those scientific problems in order to make progress. From a comment I wrote back almost 2 and a half years ago: Oh, and in case you're wondering why I keep bringing up data mining algorithms. With data mining we don't necessarily have to know HOW we would train the user to do what we want them do, we just have to know WHAT we want to train the user to do and provide enough iterations and feedback data for the algorithms to adjust the approach until the job gets done. It's basically using a neural network to train another neural network. That's why I'm so confident in my assertions, whether my techniques work with pinpoint accuracy is irrelevant because as long as the brain has specific processes it uses to learn and behave, proper data mining techniques will be capable of taking care of the rest. Data mining's versatility is part of what makes it so dangerous. This AI shit is real, this AI shit is happening now. #MicDrop ;) |
Thanks to captainstubing for passing it my way.