A single neuron in the brain is an incredibly complex machine that even today we don't understand. A single 'neuron' in a neural network is an incredibly simple mathematical function that captures a minuscule fraction of the complexity of a biological neuron.
Interpretation
The complexity of biological neurons far exceeds our current understanding and the simplicity of artificial neurons.
This quote compares the intricate nature of biological neurons with the simplicity of artificial neurons used in neural networks. It highlights the vast gap in complexity between human brain functions and current technologies, emphasizing that while we have made strides in AI, much remains to be understood about the brain's workings.
In practice
In a discussion about the limitations of AI technology, this quote can emphasize the need for further research in neuroscience.
AI has been making tremendous progress in machine translation, self-driving cars, etc. Basically, all the progress I see is in specialised intelligence. It might be hundreds or thousands of years or, if there is an unexpected breakthrough, decades.
It seemed really amazing that you could write a few lines of code and have it learn to do interesting things.
Most of the value of deep learning today is in narrow domains where you can get a lot of data. Here's one example of something it cannot do: have a meaningful conversation.
Imagine if we can just talk to our computers and have it understand, 'Please schedule a meeting with Bob for next week.' Or if each child could have a personalized tutor. Or if self-driving cars could save all of us hours of driving.
None of us today know how to get computers to learn with the speed and flexibility of a child.
I've been to so many manufacturing plants. I've yet to walk into one where I did not think AI solutions wouldn't help.
If the code does indeed have some logical foundation then it is legitimate to consider all the evidence, both good and bad, in any attempt to deduce it.
No planet is more earth-like than Earth itself, so if life really does pop up readily in earth-like conditions, then surely it should have arisen many times right here on our home planet? And how do we know it didn't? The truth is, nobody has looked.
My practise as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world. And I should be a coward if I did not state my theoretical views in public.
I had a feeling once about Mathematics - that I saw it all. Depth beyond depth was revealed to me - the Byss and Abyss. I saw - as one might see the transit of Venus or even the Lord Mayor's Show - a quantity passing through infinity and changing its sign from plus to minus. I saw exactly why it happened and why the tergiversation was inevitable but it was after dinner and I let it go.
Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas.
It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.