edit: I'm not sure I was clear enough-- the term "neural network" is a misnomer that encompasses extremely different models that are largely unrelated except for being vaguely inspired by the brain. A vanilla multilayer-perceptron is essentially a generalization of logistic regression. Restricted Boltzmann Machines are different beasts-- they're a restriction of undirected graphical models made amenable to efficient training. Recurrent neural networks aren't in any way a minor extension of other neural networks-- you need different terminology to talk meaningfully about them and they essentially don't have reliable training algorithms. This latter class can be viewed as Turing-equivalent computation, but they're not at all the same as the models in the original article.
Re:Scientists See Promise in Deep-Learning Programs
by mojuba on Saturday November 24, 2012 @02:08PM
(#4826119)
On the other hand, there is nothing a neural net can do that a Turing machine can't do (perhaps even better?).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Scientists See Promise in Deep-Learning Programs
by iskander on Saturday November 24, 2012 @02:21PM
(#4826164)
There is no "a neural net". Which model do you mean? Certainly not the deep belief networks under discussion in the article.
Re:Scientists See Promise in Deep-Learning Programs
by wookietrader on Saturday November 24, 2012 @02:12PM
(#4826135)
Neural Nets cannot loop (unless they are recurrent neural nets) and are memory bound.