You can't play 20 questions with nature and win redux

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 46:e402 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

An incomplete science begets imperfect models. Nevertheless, the target article advocates for jettisoning deep-learning models with some competency in object recognition for toy models evaluated against a checklist of laboratory findings; an approach which evokes Alan Newell's 20 questions critique. We believe their approach risks incoherency and neglects the most basic test; can the model perform its intended task.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,069

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Winning “20 Questions” with mathematical models.James T. Townsend - 1989 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (4):775-776.
Do ML models represent their targets?Emily Sullivan - forthcoming - Philosophy of Science.
Connectionism, ACT-R, and the principle of self-organization.Pavel N. Prudkov - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):616-617.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-12-08

Downloads
9 (#1,280,687)

6 months
9 (#355,594)

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations