DOCSLIB.ORG

Connectionist Learning Procedures. INSTITUTION Carnegie-Mellca Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Connectionist Learning Procedures. INSTITUTION Carnegie-Mellca Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa DOCUMENT RESUME ED 294 889 TM 011 451 AUTHOR Hinton, Geoffrey E. TITLE Connectionist Learning Procedures. INSTITUTION Carnegie-Mellca Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa. Dept. of Computer Science. SPO AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Va. Personnel and Training Research Programs Office. REPORT NO TR-CMU-CS-87-115 PUB DATE Jun 87 CONTRACT N00014-86-K-00167 GRANT IST-8520359 NOTE 70p. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Cognitive Processes; *Learning Processes; *Neurological Oraanization IDENTIFIERS *Connectionism ABSTRACT A major goal of research on networks of neuron-like processing units is to discover efficient learning procedures that allow these networks to construct complex internal representations of their environment. The learning procedures must be capable of modifying the connection strengths in such a way that internal units which are not part of the input or output come to represent important features of the task domain. Several interesting gradient-descent procedures have recently been discovered. Each connection computes the derivative, with respect to the connection strength, of a global measure of the error in the performance of the network. The strength is then adjusted in the direction that decreases the error. These relatively simple, gradient-descent learning procedures work well for small tasks and the new challenge is to find ways of improving the speed of learning so that they can be applied to larger, :Wore realistic tasks. (Author) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ******************************************************************-.**** UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No 0704-0188 la REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb RESTRICTIVE MAPKINGS Unclassified 2a SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT Approved for public release; distribution 2b DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE unlimited 4 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) CMU-CS-87-115 6a NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION (If applicable) Carnegie-Mellon University Personnel and Training Research Programs Office of Naval Research 6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) Department of Computer Science 800 North Quincy Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Arlington, VA 22217-5000 8a NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING 8b OFFICE SYMBOL 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ORGANIZATION (If applicable) N00014-86-K-00167 8c ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS PROGRAM PROJECT 'TASK WORK UNIT ELEMENT NO NO ACCESSION NO 61153N _RR04206 RR04206-08442b-467 11 TITLE (Include Security Classification) Connectionist learning procedures 12 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S) Hinton, Geoffrey E. 13a TYPE OF REPORT 13b TIME COVERED -14 DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15 PAGE COUNT FROM Technical TO Se.tember 4 1987 16 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION 17 COSATI CODES 18 SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by blocknumber) FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Connectionism; learning procedures; neuralnetworks; gradient descent 19 ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identifyby block numbe) OVER 20 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 0 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED BE SAME AS RPT DTIC USERS Unclassified 22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)22c OFFICE SYMBOL _DrHarold Hawkins 202-696-4323 1142PT Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 3 UNCLASSIFIED CONNECTIONIST LEARNING PROCEDURES' Geoffrey E. Hinton2 June 1987 Technical Report CMU-CS-87-115 Computer Science Department Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh PA 15213 Abstract A major goal of research on networks of neuron-like processing units is to discover efficient learning procedures that allow these networks to construct complex internal representations of their environment. The learning procedures must be capable of modifying the connection strengths in sucha way that internal units which are not part of the input or output come to represent important features of the task domain. Several interesting gradient-descent procedures have recently been discovered. Each connection computes the derivative, with respect to the connection strength, ofa global measure of the error in the the performance of the network. The strength is then adjusted in the direction that decreaes the error. These relatively simple, gradient-descent learning procedures work well for small tasks and the new challenge is to find ways of improving the speed of learning so that they can be applied to larger, more realistic tasks. 'This research was supported by contract N00014-66-K-00167 from the Office c ''oval Research and by grant IST-8520359 from the National Science Foundation 2Auttiors current address is Computer Science Department, University of Toronto, 10 Kings College Road, Toronto, Ontano MSS 1A4, Canada. 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Connectionist models 1 3. Connectionist research issues 1 3.1. Search 2 3.2. Representation 3 3.3. Learning 3 4 4. Associative memories without hiddenunits 4.1. Linear associators 5 5 4.2. Non-linear associative nets 6 4.3. The deficiencies of associatorswithout hidden units 5. Simple supervised learning procedures 8 9 5.1. An LMS procedure for binarythreshold units 5.2. The perceptron convergence procedure 10 5.3. The deficiencies of simple learning 11 procedures 12 6. Back-propagatIon: A multilayerLMS procedure 6.1. The shape of he error surface 13 6.2. Two exam!., of back-propagation 14 14 6.3. Back-propagation as a maximumlikelihood procedure 6.4. Iterative back-propagation 15 6.5. Self-superviseO back-propagation 16 17 6.6. A reinforcement version ofback-propagation 6.7. The deficiencies of back-propagation 18 7. Boltzmann machines 19 20 7.1. Maximizing reinforcement andentropy in a Boltzmann machine 8. Maximizing mutual information: 23 A semi-supervised learningprocedure 24 9. Unsupervised Hebblan learning 25 9.1. A recent development of unsupervisedHebblan learning 10. Competitive learning 26 10.1. The relationship between 26 competitive learning and back-propagation 28 11. Reinforcement learningprocedures 11.1. Delayed reinforcement 30 11.2. The Aq.p procedure 31 31 11.3. Achieving global optimalityby reinforcement learning 11.4. The relative payoff procedure 32 11.5. Genetic algorithms 32 34 11.6. Genetic learning and therelative payoff rule 11.7. iterated genetic hill-climbing 34 12. Discussion 35 12.1. Generalization 35 12.2. The speed of learning 35 12.3. Hardware modularity 37 12.4. Other types of modularity 38 12.5. Conclusion 39 40 1 1. Introduction Recent technological advances in VLSI and computer aided design mean that it isnow much easier to build massively parallel machines. This has contributed to a new wave of interestin models of computation that are inspired by neural nets rather than the formal manipulation of symbolicexpressions. To understand human abilities like perceptual interpretation, content-addressablememory, commonsense reasoning, and learning it may be necessary to understand how computation is organized insystems like the brain which consist of massive numbers of richly-interconnected but rather slow processingelements. This paper focusses on thequestion of how internal representationscal; be learned in "connectionist" networks. hese are a recent subclass of neuralnet models that emphasize computational power rather than biological fidelity. They grew out of work on early visual processingand associative memories (Hinton and Anderson,1981; Feldman and Ballard, 1982; Rumelhart, McClelland et. al., 1986). The paper starts by reviewing the main research issues for connectionistmodels and then describes some of the earlier work on learning procedures for associative memories andsimple pattern recognition devices. These learning procedures cannotgenerate internal representations: They are limited to forming simple associations between representations that are specifiedexternally.Recent research has led to a variety of more powenul connectior',t learning procedures thatcan discover good internal representations and most of thepaper is devoted to a survey of these procedures. 2. Conneotion!st models Connectionist models typically consist of many simple, neuron-like processingelements called "units" that interact using weighted connections.Each unit has a "state" or "activity level"that is determined by the input received from other units in the network. Thereare many possible variations within this general framework. One common, simplifying assumption is that thecombined effects of the rest of the network on the j'I' unit are mediated by a single scalar quantity,xj.This quantity, which is called the "total input" of unit j, is a linear function of the activity levels of theunits that provide input to j: xj= Iyi wji - 9j (1) where y, is the state of the ith unit, wji is the weight on the connection from the Ph to theft' unitand O. is the threshold of the jth unit. The threshold term can be eliminated by givingevery unit an extra input connection whose activity level is fixed at 1. The weight on this special conrectionis the negative of the threshold, and 3 can be learned in just the same way as the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dynamic Behavior of Constained Back-Propagation Networks
    642 Chauvin Dynamic Behavior of Constrained Back-Propagation Networks Yves Chauvin! Thomson-CSF, Inc. 630 Hansen Way, Suite 250 Palo Alto, CA. 94304 ABSTRACT The learning dynamics of the back-propagation algorithm are in­ vestigated when complexity constraints are added to the standard Least Mean Square (LMS) cost function. It is shown that loss of generalization performance due to overtraining can be avoided when using such complexity constraints. Furthermore, "energy," hidden representations and weight distributions are observed and compared during learning. An attempt is made at explaining the results in terms of linear and non-linear effects in relation to the gradient descent learning algorithm. 1 INTRODUCTION It is generally admitted that generalization performance of back-propagation net­ works (Rumelhart, Hinton & Williams, 1986) will depend on the relative size ofthe training data and of the trained network. By analogy to curve-fitting and for theo­ retical considerations, the generalization performance of the network should de­ crease as the size of the network and the associated number of degrees of freedom increase (Rumelhart, 1987; Denker et al., 1987; Hanson & Pratt, 1989). This paper examines the dynamics of the standard back-propagation algorithm (BP) and of a constrained back-propagation variation (CBP), designed to adapt the size of the network to the training data base. The performance, learning dynamics and the representations resulting from the two algorithms are compared. 1. Also in the Psychology Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. 94305 Dynamic Behavior of Constrained Back-Propagation Networks 643 2 GENERALIZATION PERFORM:ANCE 2.1 STANDARD BACK-PROPAGATION In Chauvin (In Press). the generalization performance of a back-propagation net­ work was observed for a classification task from spectrograms into phonemic cate­ gories (single speaker.
    [Show full text]
  • ARCHITECTS of INTELLIGENCE for Xiaoxiao, Elaine, Colin, and Tristan ARCHITECTS of INTELLIGENCE
    MARTIN FORD ARCHITECTS OF INTELLIGENCE For Xiaoxiao, Elaine, Colin, and Tristan ARCHITECTS OF INTELLIGENCE THE TRUTH ABOUT AI FROM THE PEOPLE BUILDING IT MARTIN FORD ARCHITECTS OF INTELLIGENCE Copyright © 2018 Packt Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles or reviews. Every effort has been made in the preparation of this book to ensure the accuracy of the information presented. However, the information contained in this book is sold without warranty, either express or implied. Neither the author, nor Packt Publishing or its dealers and distributors, will be held liable for any damages caused or alleged to have been caused directly or indirectly by this book. Packt Publishing has endeavored to provide trademark information about all of the companies and products mentioned in this book by the appropriate use of capitals. However, Packt Publishing cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Acquisition Editors: Ben Renow-Clarke Project Editor: Radhika Atitkar Content Development Editor: Alex Sorrentino Proofreader: Safis Editing Presentation Designer: Sandip Tadge Cover Designer: Clare Bowyer Production Editor: Amit Ramadas Marketing Manager: Rajveer Samra Editorial Director: Dominic Shakeshaft First published: November 2018 Production reference: 2201118 Published by Packt Publishing Ltd. Livery Place 35 Livery Street Birmingham B3 2PB, UK ISBN 978-1-78913-151-2 www.packt.com Contents Introduction ........................................................................ 1 A Brief Introduction to the Vocabulary of Artificial Intelligence .......10 How AI Systems Learn ........................................................11 Yoshua Bengio .....................................................................17 Stuart J.
    [Show full text]
  • Cogsci Little Red Book.Indd
    OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE A SYMPOSIUM HONORING TEN YEARS OF THE DAVID E. RUMELHART PRIZE IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE August 14, 2010 Portland Oregon, USA OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE A SYMPOSIUM HONORING TEN YEARS OF THE DAVID E. RUMELHART PRIZE IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE August 14, 2010 Portland Oregon, USA David E. Rumelhart David E. Rumelhart ABOUT THE RUMELHART PRIZE AND THE 10 YEAR SYMPOSIUM At the August 2000 meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Drs. James L. McClelland and Robert J. Glushko presented the initial plan to honor the intellectual contributions of David E. Rumelhart to Cognitive Science. Rumelhart had retired from Stanford University in 1998, suffering from Pick’s disease, a degenerative neurological illness. The plan involved honoring Rumelhart through an annual prize of $100,000, funded by the Robert J. Glushko and Pamela Samuelson Foundation. McClelland was a close collaborator of Rumelhart, and, together, they had written numerous articles and books on parallel distributed processing. Glushko, who had been Rumelhart’s Ph.D student in the late 1970s and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur in the 1990s, is currently an adjunct professor at the University of California – Berkeley. The David E. Rumelhart prize was conceived to honor outstanding research in formal approaches to human cognition. Rumelhart’s own seminal contributions to cognitive science included both connectionist and symbolic models, employing both computational and mathematical tools. These contributions progressed from his early work on analogies and story grammars to the development of backpropagation and the use of parallel distributed processing to model various cognitive abilities. Critically, Rumelhart believed that future progress in cognitive science would depend upon researchers being able to develop rigorous, formal theories of mental structures and processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Introspection:Accelerating Neural Network Training by Learning Weight Evolution
    Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2017 INTROSPECTION:ACCELERATING NEURAL NETWORK TRAINING BY LEARNING WEIGHT EVOLUTION Abhishek Sinha∗ Mausoom Sarkar Department of Electronics and Electrical Comm. Engg. Adobe Systems Inc, Noida IIT Kharagpur Uttar Pradesh,India West Bengal, India msarkar at adobe dot com abhishek.sinha94 at gmail dot com Aahitagni Mukherjee∗ Balaji Krishnamurthy Department of Computer Science Adobe Systems Inc, Noida IIT Kanpur Uttar Pradesh,India Uttar Pradesh, India kbalaji at adobe dot com ahitagnimukherjeeam at gmail dot com ABSTRACT Neural Networks are function approximators that have achieved state-of-the-art accuracy in numerous machine learning tasks. In spite of their great success in terms of accuracy, their large training time makes it difficult to use them for various tasks. In this paper, we explore the idea of learning weight evolution pattern from a simple network for accelerating training of novel neural networks. We use a neural network to learn the training pattern from MNIST classifi- cation and utilize it to accelerate training of neural networks used for CIFAR-10 and ImageNet classification. Our method has a low memory footprint and is computationally efficient. This method can also be used with other optimizers to give faster convergence. The results indicate a general trend in the weight evolution during training of neural networks. 1 INTRODUCTION Deep neural networks have been very successful in modeling high-level abstractions in data. How- ever, training a deep neural network for any AI task is a time-consuming process. This is because a arXiv:1704.04959v1 [cs.LG] 17 Apr 2017 large number of parameters need to be learnt using training examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Backpropagation: 1Th E Basic Theory
    Backpropagation: 1Th e Basic Theory David E. Rumelhart Richard Durbin Richard Golden Yves Chauvin Department of Psychology, Stanford University INTRODUCTION Since the publication of the PDP volumes in 1986,1 learning by backpropagation has become the most popular method of training neural networks. The reason for the popularity is the underlying simplicity and relative power of the algorithm. Its power derives from the fact that, unlike its precursors, the perceptron learning rule and the Widrow-Hoff learning rule, it can be employed for training nonlinear networks of arbitrary connectivity. Since such networks are often required for real-world applications, such a learning procedure is critical. Nearly as important as its power in explaining its popularity is its simplicity. The basic idea is old and simple; namely define an error function and use hill climbing (or gradient descent if you prefer going downhill) to find a set of weights which optimize perfor­ mance on a particular task. The algorithm is so simple that it can be implemented in a few lines of code, and there have been no doubt many thousands of imple­ mentations of the algorithm by now. The name back propagation actually comes from the term employed by Rosenblatt (1962) for his attempt to generalize the perceptron learning algorithm to the multilayer case. There were many attempts to generalize the perceptron learning procedure to multiple layers during the 1960s and 1970s, but none of them were especially successful. There appear to have been at least three inde­ pendent inventions of the modern version of the back-propagation algorithm: Paul Werbos developed the basic idea in 1974 in a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Voice Identity Finder Using the Back Propagation Algorithm of An
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia Computer Science 95 ( 2016 ) 245 – 252 Complex Adaptive Systems, Publication 6 Cihan H. Dagli, Editor in Chief Conference Organized by Missouri University of Science and Technology 2016 - Los Angeles, CA Voice Identity Finder Using the Back Propagation Algorithm of an Artificial Neural Network Roger Achkar*, Mustafa El-Halabi*, Elie Bassil*, Rayan Fakhro*, Marny Khalil* *Department of Computer and Communications Engineering, American University of Science and Technology, AUST Beirut, Lebanon Abstract Voice recognition systems are used to distinguish different sorts of voices. However, recognizing a voice is not always successful due to the presence of different parameters. Hence, there is a need to create a set of estimation criteria and a learning process using Artificial Neural Network (ANN). The learning process performed using ANN allows the system to mimic how the brain learns to understand and differentiate among voices. The key to undergo this learning is to specify the free parameters that will be adapted through this process of simulation. Accordingly, this system will store the knowledge processed after performing the back propagation learning and will be able to identify the corresponding voices. The proposed learning allows the user to enter a number of different voices to the system through a microphone. © 20162016 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by byElsevier Elsevier B.V. B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of scientific committee of Missouri University of Science and Technology. Peer-review under responsibility of scientific committee of Missouri University of Science and Technology Keywords: Frequency; Neural Network; Backpropagation; Voice Recognition; Multi-layer Perceptrons.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timeline of Artificial Intelligence
    A Timeline of Artificial Intelligence by piero scaruffi | www.scaruffi.com All of these events are explained in my book "Intelligence is not Artificial". TM, ®, Copyright © 1996-2019 Piero Scaruffi except pictures. All rights reserved. 1960: Henry Kelley and Arthur Bryson invent backpropagation 1960: Donald Michie's reinforcement-learning system MENACE 1960: Hilary Putnam's Computational Functionalism ("Minds and Machines") 1960: The backpropagation algorithm 1961: Melvin Maron's "Automatic Indexing" 1961: Karl Steinbuch's neural network Lernmatrix 1961: Leonard Scheer's and John Chubbuck's Mod I (1962) and Mod II (1964) 1961: Space General Corporation's lunar explorer 1962: IBM's "Shoebox" for speech recognition 1962: AMF's "VersaTran" robot 1963: John McCarthy moves to Stanford and founds the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL) 1963: Lawrence Roberts' "Machine Perception of Three Dimensional Solids", the birth of computer vision 1963: Jim Slagle writes a program for symbolic integration (calculus) 1963: Edward Feigenbaum's and Julian Feldman's "Computers and Thought" 1963: Vladimir Vapnik's "support-vector networks" (SVN) 1964: Peter Toma demonstrates the machine-translation system Systran 1965: Irving John Good (Isidore Jacob Gudak) speculates about "ultraintelligent machines" (the "singularity") 1965: The Case Institute of Technology builds the first computer-controlled robotic arm 1965: Ed Feigenbaum's Dendral expert system 1965: Gordon Moore's Law of exponential progress in integrated circuits ("Cramming more components
    [Show full text]
  • Boltzmann Machines, Backpropagation, Bayesian Networks
    Boltzmann Machines, Backpropagation, Bayesian Networks (Copyright © 2018 Piero Scaruffi - Silicon Valley Artificial Intelligence Research Institute) The Hopfield network proved Minsky and Papert wrong but has a problem: it tends to get trapped into what mathematicians call "local minima". Two improvements of Hopfield networks were proposed in a few months: the Boltzmann machine and backpropagation. The Boltzmann machine was inspired by the physical process of annealing. At the same time that Hopfield introduced his recurrent neural networks, Scott Kirkpatrick at IBM introduced a stochastic method for mathematical optimization called "simulated annealing" (" Optimization by Simulated Annealing", 1983), which uses a degree of randomness to overcome local minima. This method was literally inspired by the physical process of cooling a liquid until it achieves a solid state. In 1983 the cognitive psychologist Geoffrey Hinton, formerly a member of the PDP group at UC San Diego and now at Carnegie Mellon University, and the physicist Terry Sejnowski, a student of Hopfield but now at John Hopkins University, invented a neural network called the Boltzmann Machine that used a stochastic technique to avoid local minima, basically a Monte Carlo version of the Hopfield network ("Optimal Perceptual Inference", 1983): they used an "energy function" equivalent to Hopfield's energy function (the annealing process) but they replaced Hopfield's deterministic neurons with probabilistic neurons. Simulated annealing allows Boltzmann machines to find low energy states with high probability. Their Boltzmann Machine (with no layers) avoided local minima and converged towards a global minimum. The learning rule of a Boltzmann machine is simple, and, yet, that learning rule can discover interesting features about the training data.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Technologies: Mapping the Internet Governance Debate by Goran S
    Cognitive technologies: mapping the Internet governance debate by Goran S. Milovanović This paper • provides a simple explanation of what cognitive technologies are. • gives an overview of the main idea of cognitive science (why human minds and computers could be thought of as being essentially similar kinds of systems). • discusses in brief how developments in engineering and fundamental research interact to result in cognitive technologies. • presents an example of applied cognitive science (text‑mining) in the mapping of the Internet governance debate. Introduction processes naturally faced increased demand for information processing and management. But this is not simply a question of how many raw Among the words that first come to mind processing power or how much memory storage when Internet governance (IG) is mentioned, we have at our disposal. The complexity of social complexity surely scores in the forerunners. processes that call for good governance, as well But do we ever grasp the full complexity of such as the amount of communication that mediates issues? Is it possible for an individual human the actions of the actors involved, increase up mind ever to claim a full understanding of a to a level where qualitatively different forms of process that encompasses thousands of actors, management must come into play. One cannot a plenitude of different positions, articulates an understand them by simply looking at them, or agenda of almost non‑stop ongoing meetings, listening to what everyone has to say: there are conferences, forums, and negotiations, while so many voices, and among billions of thoughts, addressing the interests of billions of Internet ideas, concepts, and words, there are known users? With the development of the Internet, limits to human cognition to be recognised.
    [Show full text]
  • Connectionism and Language Acquisition
    Connectionism and language acquisition Jeffrey L. Elman University of California, San Diego Metaphors play a far more important role in science than many people realize. We are not only fascinated when we discover resemblances between phenomena that come from wildly different domains (atoms and solar systems, for example); these similarities often shape the way we think. Metaphors both extend but also limit our imagination. Until recently, the metaphor that dominated the way we thought about the human brain was the digital computer. This is no coincidence: During the early days of what we now call computer science, in the 1940s and 1950s, engineers and mathematicians were very impressed by work by neuroscientists that suggested that the basic processing elements of the brain—neurons—were nothing more than binary on/off units. The first computers were actually designed to mimic with vacuum tubes what neuroscientists thought brains were doing. Thus, the metaphor of the brain-as-computer actually started the other way around: the computer-as-brain. This metaphor has had an enormous impact in the theories that people have developed about many aspects of human cognition. Cognitive processes were assumed to be carried out by discrete operations that were executed in serial order. Memory was seen as distinct from the mechanisms that operated on it. And most importantly, processing was thought of in terms of symbolic rules of the sort that one finds in computer programming languages. These assumptions underlay almost all of the important cognitive theories up through the 1970s, and continue to be highly influential today. But as research within this framework progressed, the advances also revealed shortcomings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, Comprehensive Definition, She Embraces the Definitional Extremes, Literature, This Volume Provides a Margaret A
    AI Magazine Volume 14 Number 2 (1993) (© AAAI) Book Reviews Book Reviews The Philosophy of In the introduction to this antholo- no reference to the computer at all. Artificial Intelligence gy, Boden defines the philosophy of This collection, however, focuses on AI broadly “as the science of intelli- the philosophical problems associat- gence in general—or, more accurate- ed with the machine metaphor and asks whether machine intelligence is Lee A. Gladwin ly, as the intellectual core of cognitive science.” Through this possible. For those already familiar with the The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, comprehensive definition, she embraces the definitional extremes, literature, this volume provides a Margaret A. Boden, ed., Oxford Read- handy compendium. For students, it including those that traditionally ings in Philosophy, Oxford Universi- provides a concise overview of the view AI “as the study of how to build ty Press, New York, New York, 1990, machine intelligence debate. The and/or program computers to enable 460 pp., $14.95, ISBN 0-19-824854-7 first essays lay the foundation for the (paper). them to do the sorts of things that discussion that follows. These essays minds can do” and those that make include “A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity” by Warren S. McCulloch and Walter H. Pitts, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” by Alan M. Turing, and “Computing Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search” by Allen Newell and Herbert Simon. The remaining essays deal primari- ly with three types of criticism inspired by Turing’s paper and the Basic Books Ad belief “that intelligence necessarily involves causal processes (computa- tions) of a certain systematic sort.” Antibehaviorist criticisms form the first type.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistics and Machine Learning Experiments in English and Romanian Poetry
    Article Statistics and Machine Learning Experiments in English and Romanian Poetry Ovidiu Calin Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA; [email protected] Received: 10 June 2020; Accepted: 28 June 2020; Published: 11 December 2020 Abstract: This paper presents a quantitative approach to poetry, based on the use of several statistical measures (entropy, informational energy, N-gram, etc.) applied to a few characteristic English writings. We found that English language changes its entropy as time passes, and that entropy depends on the language used and on the author. In order to compare two similar texts, we were able to introduce a statistical method to asses the information entropy between two texts. We also introduced a method of computing the average information conveyed by a group of letters about the next letter in the text. We found a formula for computing the Shannon language entropy and we introduced the concept of N-gram informational energy of a poetry. We also constructed a neural network, which is able to generate Byron-type poetry and to analyze the information proximity to the genuine Byron poetry. Keywords: entropy; Kullback–Leibler relative entropy; recurrent neural networks; learning 1. Introduction This paper deals with applications of statistics and machine learning to poetry. This is an interdisciplinary field of research situated at the intersection of information theory, statistics, machine learning and literature, whose growth is due to recent developments in data science and technology. The importance of the paper consists of a quantitative approach to an area that until recently belonged more to the field of arts rather than to the field of exact sciences.
    [Show full text]