A single neuron in the brain is an incredibly complex machine that even today we don't understand. A single 'neuron' in a neural network is an incredibly simple mathematical function that captures a minuscule fraction of the complexity of a biological neuron.
Interpretation
The complexity of biological neurons far exceeds our current understanding and the simplicity of artificial neurons.
This quote compares the intricate nature of biological neurons with the simplicity of artificial neurons used in neural networks. It highlights the vast gap in complexity between human brain functions and current technologies, emphasizing that while we have made strides in AI, much remains to be understood about the brain's workings.
In practice
In a discussion about the limitations of AI technology, this quote can emphasize the need for further research in neuroscience.
AI has been making tremendous progress in machine translation, self-driving cars, etc. Basically, all the progress I see is in specialised intelligence. It might be hundreds or thousands of years or, if there is an unexpected breakthrough, decades.
It seemed really amazing that you could write a few lines of code and have it learn to do interesting things.
Most of the value of deep learning today is in narrow domains where you can get a lot of data. Here's one example of something it cannot do: have a meaningful conversation.
Imagine if we can just talk to our computers and have it understand, 'Please schedule a meeting with Bob for next week.' Or if each child could have a personalized tutor. Or if self-driving cars could save all of us hours of driving.
None of us today know how to get computers to learn with the speed and flexibility of a child.
I've been to so many manufacturing plants. I've yet to walk into one where I did not think AI solutions wouldn't help.
Just by studying mathematics we can hope to make a guess at the kind of mathematics that will come into the physics of the future... If someone can hit on the right lines along which to make this development, it may lead to a future advance in which people will first discover the equations and then, after examining them, gradually learn how to apply them... My own belief is that this is a more likely line of progress than trying to guess at physical pictures.
The magnitude of the atomic weight determines the character of the element, just as the magnitude of the molecule determines the character of a compound body.
Science proceeds more by what it has learned to ignore than what it takes into account.
I was a science fiction geek. That lets you know that they come in all sizes and styles, right?
The biogeographic evidence for evolution is now so powerful that I have never seen a creationist book, article, or lecture that has tried to refute it. Creationists simply pretend that the evidence doesn't exist.
I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct. The forms which stand in closest competition with those undergoing modification and improvement will naturally suffer most.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.