Comment by Madmallard
2 years ago
So when you read this:
quote: "Lol. This is ENTIRELY conjecture. Given that we solved protein folding via machine learning sounds to me like this is just straight up cope. We'll have a model that given our experimental data that we cannot fully interpret will come up with a better approach.
"“The apple would not have fallen but for the force of gravity.” That is thinking."
Yeah this guy is speaking completely out of his depth here.
"The crux of machine learning is description and prediction; it does not posit any causal mechanisms or physical laws. Of course, any human-style explanation is not necessarily correct; we are fallible."
Have you ever thought that given that machine learning algorithms have far surpassed humans at any computable games in terms of strategic depth that they may not also be able to do this for explaining variance in experimental data? It's really not much of a logical leap at all to make that conclusion." end quote:
What do you see? Do you see the word LOL at like 72px font and the rest at 1px font? Because that's the way what you're saying comes across to me.
What you said seems extremely unfairly dismissive.
>What you said seems extremely unfairly dismissive.
Did you even read those comments? The vast majority are actually addressed in the article. It doesn't engage with the Op-ed at all, just lists things he says and provides facile rebuts. You think some random poster saying that Chomsky is "this guy is completely out of his depth here?" The poster doesn't even understand what he's saying. Sorry it fooled you too!