it is not. in this case these researchers have lost their way, with how symbolics entered the conversation. to remind, it is via wanting to prove that ai vs traditional program is understanding deeper. well guess what, ai is not understanding your input better, its your mind playing tricks with language. For analogy, digital world is not real in a physical sense.
if output is food, and input is ingredients, then symbolic programs care about macro slicing dicing stacking them, while ai is micro level spice & heat that doesn't especially conscious to the ingredients, just that chemistry appears magical. hey! we eat our information food tho.
reply> while ai is micro level spice & heat that doesn't especially conscious to the ingredients, just that chemistry appears magical.
replyHuh? Do you mean “isn’t especially conscious of the ingredients”?
Though, that interpretation seems confusing, because it seems to be meant to be contrasting with “macro slicing dicing stacking them” which doesn’t sound more attentive to what the ingredients are than “micro level spice and heat”.
So, I’m having trouble understanding. (This might be a me problem.)
yes, you are right there is no contrast, because both ai(vector nn) and traditional symbolic programs are not aware of inputs/understanding deeper/"excel in domain" outside our interpretation of it.
replyIn the way digital is the symbolic representation of physical, ai programs may have internal symbolic representation. This paper shows that nn vectors can be closely approx with symbolic structures.
as long as it is honest, everything is ok.
replyIt's very caring and reassuring also. It gave me an elaborated response on how researchers may discuss ridiculously fun theories. And what should be my takeaways as engineer. I guess I should turn off the Work IQ.
reply