If we show a neural network some examples from the Game of Life and expect it to master the rules of a cellular automaton, then aren't we asking too much from it? In some ways, this is analogous to expecting that if we show the neural network examples from the physical world, it will automatically derive Newton's three laws. Not every person observing the world around him can independently deduce Newton's laws from scratch, no matter how many examples he sees.
moconnor|1 year ago
passwordoops|1 year ago
Not according to the hype merchants, hucksters, and VCs who think word models are displaying emergence and we're 6 months from AGI, if only we can have more data
int_19h|1 year ago
"As the researchers added more layers and parameters to the neural network, the results improved and the training process eventually yielded a solution that reached near-perfect accuracy."
So, no, we aren't asking too much from it. We just need more compute.
nottorp|1 year ago
Can you do a neural network that, given a starting position of the game of life, decides if it cycles or not? ;)
Ok, not cycles... dies, stabilizes, goes into a loop etc.
elevatedastalt|1 year ago
danielbln|1 year ago
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
HeatrayEnjoyer|1 year ago
They are displaying emergence. They might as well be the walking definition of it.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]