- From: Ronald Reck <rreck@rrecktek.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:40:37 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Dave Raggett" <dsr@w3.org>
- CC: "public-cogai" <public-cogai@w3.org>
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 16:23:08 +0000, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote: > My hunch is that we are essentially using continual prediction in each layer to provide a local training signal given that stochastic gradient descent is very implausible as a model of the brain. I am now trying to explore the design space for sensory cognition, including sequence learning. Here are just a few of the questions that arise: I am wondering if our best approach forward is based on modeling the human brain's approach or focusing on solving the problems piecemeal based on defined requirements. > > Does memory need to resolve to a single trace or is a supposition of traces a better fit to the requirements? The former could involve Hopfield networks with an iteration to find the best matching trace as a minimum in the Lagrangian energy space. these are very thoughtful questions. > Is the memory specific to each layer or shared across layers? I would venture they are not shared across layers as the representations at each layer may be different. > Are transformations an integral part of memory or a complementary system? > How are transformations expressed? > How are queries expressed and used to identify the transformations to apply? I personally would initially assume they are different at each layer. > Can multiple complementary transformations be applied in parallel? Yes > How are slot fillers recorded so that something is only used once as a filler? Wow, What great question, this is especially relevant if it is in parallel. Ronald P. Reck http://www.rrecktek.com - http://www.ronaldreck.com
Received on Friday, 10 January 2025 13:40:43 UTC