Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, it's not.

Humans seem to solve problems with a combination of learned stock knowledge, induction, and constrained improvisation.

Constrained improvisation is the most interesting part of that process, and the one we know least about.

It's one thing building a system that asymptotically improves over millions of trials, and then sending out a press release claiming your system is as smart as a human.

It's another building a system that learns a domain as efficiently as a human.

Compare the relatively small number of games played/analysed by a Go master on their way to master status, compared with the number of simulated games played/analysed by AlphaGo.

ML is still a rather naive form of constrained brute forcing. It's a long way short of efficient learning.



> ML is still a rather naive form of constrained brute forcing. It's a long way short of efficient learning.

Uh... Bayesian can do the above at in term of expert domain. They call it elicitation in the Bayesian world.

I think you're overall generalizing all learning techniques. And also it's not like we actually really know how the human brain learn. Psychology is a field with huge uncertainties and you can see that in their research papers with correlation values. So the concept of learning may be out dated and/or we are still learning about what makes us learn.


You're describing a technique for finding patterns. There are many possible techniques and machines can (probably) use any of them. The constraint would be if the technique involved kinetic or quantum mechanics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: