Artificial Neural Networks – Introduction
rzagabe.com
rzagabe.com
has this been proved ? would be very interested to know who proved this and how they went about doing it.
Yes!
> would be very interested to know who proved this and how they went about doing it.
Well. There's this thing you do. It only takes a few minutes. Then you wait about nine months. At that point you start collecting data. The first year or two are somewhat inconclusive. The data (and the subject) can be very noisy. By the time you've made observations and collected data for about eight years the conclusion is inescapable: Monkeys.
According to my observations across three of these experiments I would add that monkeys might sometimes have an edge over some of the crap we pull.
Keyword being most, however this primitive impulse, like many primitive impulses such as wanting to strangle your boss when they make you upset, can be overcome with cognitive reappraisal. "I am not really that hungry, and I could even make it an entire day without eating and still survive" or "I don't really want to kill her, I would lose my job and go to prison"
There's one critical difference between biological neural networks and the artificial models they're talking about here: the biological neurons produce spikes when they activate, not continuously-variable activation levels.
These artificial models whitewash these features away by modelling only the neuron's firing rate and not the inter-spike timing or spike train behaviours.
That link leads to the Japanese toilet maker Toto, not to any ML paper. I suspect it was pranksters, not the author.
> We'll see that artificial neural networks are not that different from our magnificent biological system "in their most basic definitions".
I've tried to make it clear enough that we should avoid analogies with biological neural systems.