You might not need machine learning

Re:You might not need machine learning by maweki on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @06:31AM (#25197505)

I don't know the dude. I "only" know that my field of research is deductive reasoning in interactive applications and that this area falls under "Logic Programming" and LP is an area of AI.

I know that AI researchers are usually a bit dismissive about the other area. I don't like statistics either. Reducing the whole of AI research to statistical approaches (and NNs are one of those) is disingenious and dismisses hundreds of researchers doing important work.

You may not want to have rule-based image recognition, but if your car decides to run over somebody, I feel we better have an explanation for this behaviour based on reasoning and logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You might not need machine learning by laichzeit0 on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @12:30PM (#25200693)

I don’t think anyone is dismissing symbolic AI. As far as I can see, it’s just not beating current SOTA results of NNs? It’s not really about ideology, it’s about what currently has superior performance. Model interpretability is not always a requirement.

[ Parent | on HN ]