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: 91,928

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

Play and games: An opinionated introduction.Michael Ridge - 2019 - Philosophy Compass 14 (4):e12573.
Play in Philosophy and Social Thought.Henning Eichberg & Signe Højbjerre Larsen - 2018 - New York, NY: Routledge. Edited by Signe Højbjerre Larsen.
Essentially Practical Questions.Brendan Balcerak Jackson - 2019 - Analytic Philosophy 60 (1):1-26.
Conquering Love.Lilith Acadia - 2020 - Common Knowledge 26 (3):407-430.
Playing for keeps.Kerrie P. Lewis & Robert A. Barton - 2004 - Human Nature 15 (1):5-21.
Loving Creatures.Ty Kieser - 2022 - Philosophia Christi 24 (1):39-46.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-12-08

Downloads
9 (#1,254,275)

6 months
9 (#308,564)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations