> They are the first who have a machine learn to solve problems that require memory.
Incorrect. It was named a Neural (Turing) machine for a reason. Maybe people should go back and dust off the white papers from the 70s like those who are borrowing from that era and respectfully giving credit where credit is due.
They do great work and they are making great progress in Artificial Intelligence. Many people are. Everything is a stepping stone. It serves no good to over-hype one person's stones over another's or ignore/downplay where they were inspired from. Notable visionaries of a past time were visionaries because they detailed the depths of their thinking and centered on the hows/whys. It seems it is fashionable now-a-days to do the exact opposite. This is to a disservice to learning and progress.
The whole point of the human brain is parallel processing. Extra-cellular chemical Gradients function the same way in the human brain and serve the same purposes. Take a look at the papers I linked.
> I don't know if they are copied or not from nature (doesnt look like).
Extra-cellular chemical Gradients. I linked to white papers that explain how memory is stored in them and shared across neurons. This is how it works in nature and biology.
They named their approach 'Synthetic Gradients'. An artificial form of the biological Gradient that is decoupled and lies outside of a neuron. They are clearly giving credit to nature.
They and many other people are improving mankind. Many others can improve mankind if there was less hype and more of a focus on where the ideas originated.
That was my point..
The behavior of people regarding selective 'hype' is one of the big reasons why a tremendous amount of deeply functional work that centers on hard intuitions and ideas for this area will remain closed source when a real break is made.
Enjoy the hype train I guess...
They're operating on another level than anyone else.
Incorrect. It was named a Neural (Turing) machine for a reason. Maybe people should go back and dust off the white papers from the 70s like those who are borrowing from that era and respectfully giving credit where credit is due.
They do great work and they are making great progress in Artificial Intelligence. Many people are. Everything is a stepping stone. It serves no good to over-hype one person's stones over another's or ignore/downplay where they were inspired from. Notable visionaries of a past time were visionaries because they detailed the depths of their thinking and centered on the hows/whys. It seems it is fashionable now-a-days to do the exact opposite. This is to a disservice to learning and progress.
The whole point of the human brain is parallel processing. Extra-cellular chemical Gradients function the same way in the human brain and serve the same purposes. Take a look at the papers I linked.
> I don't know if they are copied or not from nature (doesnt look like).
Extra-cellular chemical Gradients. I linked to white papers that explain how memory is stored in them and shared across neurons. This is how it works in nature and biology.
They named their approach 'Synthetic Gradients'. An artificial form of the biological Gradient that is decoupled and lies outside of a neuron. They are clearly giving credit to nature.
They and many other people are improving mankind. Many others can improve mankind if there was less hype and more of a focus on where the ideas originated.
That was my point..
The behavior of people regarding selective 'hype' is one of the big reasons why a tremendous amount of deeply functional work that centers on hard intuitions and ideas for this area will remain closed source when a real break is made.
Enjoy the hype train I guess... They're operating on another level than anyone else.