Connectionists: Stephen Hanson in conversation with Geoff Hinton

[Juyang Weng]

Dear Geoff Hinton,
I respect that you have been working on pattern recognition on isolated
characters using neural networks.

However, I am deeply disappointed that after receiving the Turing Award
2018, you are still falling behind your own award work by talking about "how
you
recognize that a handwritten 2 is a 2."  You have fallen behind our group's
Creceptron work in 1992, let alone our group's work on 3D-to-2D-to-3D
Conscious Learning using DNs.   Both deal with cluttered scenes.

Specifically, you will never be able to get a correct causal explanation by
looking at a single hand-written 2.   Your problem is too small to explain
a brain network.  You must look at cluttered sciences, with many objects.

Yours humbly,
-John
 ----
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0500
From: Geoffrey Hinton <geoffrey.hinton at gmail.com>
To: "Dietterich, Thomas" <tgd at oregonstate.edu>
Cc: AIhub <aihuborg at gmail.com>,
        "connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu"
        <connectionists at mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Connectionists: Stephen Hanson in conversation with Geoff
        Hinton
Message-ID:
        <CAK8NvqpAHbC=T2U3dZb=QaSMVkY4=xCqaYmzu+pq5rnoh+p2mQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I agree that it's nice to have a causal explanations. But I am not
convinced there will ever be a simple causal explanation for how you
recognize that a handwritten 2 is a 2.

-- 
Juyang (John) Weng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20220206/379d69e2/attachment-0001.html>