Talk:2173: Trained a Neural Net

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search


Of course it's cheating as human's neural nets came pre-trained. I mean, unless you trained infant to do it, and even then, some things in image recognition are hardwired. In any contest between modern software and infant in face recognition or "is that face happy" recognition, I'm betting on infant. -- Hkmaly (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Face recognition might be innate, but higher level tasks are not. You're not born knowing how to ride a bicycle or do algebra (there may be some simple counting circuits in the brain), your neural network has to be trained so you can do these.Barmar (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahh -- a short and sweet comic and explanation! I'd propose not bloating the explanation too much; the joke has been explained perfectly fine already. 172.68.51.16 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just all adhere to Randall's own advice in 1475:Technically:

'My life improved when I realized I could just ignore any sentence that started with "technically."'


162.158.154.115 11:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

But this one doesn't start that way. 141.101.99.77 14:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Technically correct is only technically the best kind of correct during the all-but two week window when astrology doesn't work. 172.68.141.82 18:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yay! We trained a neural net to explain XKCD Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the paragraph on the neural net for answering questions about Wikipedia content is helpful at explaining the comic, but I am convinced that including 6 separate links within that short paragraph is entirely disruptive to that goal. Either the quantity of links should be severely curtailed or the paragraph needs to be removed from the explanation! Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that you called it spam, given Randall's affinity for Wikipedia, and it being the best example. Can we workshop it here? I am happy to replace the many links to one at an intermediate page, e.g.[1] 172.68.189.91 23:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't call it spam - the editor who removed it used that term. I just felt the nearly continuous links were a little excessive and made it difficult to read. It might be appropriate in an added "Trivia" section at the end of the explanation, with just a link or two. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand Randall's affinity for Wikipedia, but I don't believe that this neural net paragraph is helpful to the comic explanation. The Wikipedia neural net is not mentioned int he comic, and there is no indication that Randall was thinking about the Wikipedia neural net when he was creating the comic. I will move this to a Trivia section. 162.158.58.169 17:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This explanation uses two distinct definitions of "neural net". The first is the computer science algorithm called a neural net, and the second is net of neurons that is the human brain. We do not know how the human brain works -- artificial neural nets may or may not be a good simulation. However there is a long history of saying that a brain works like the most complex piece of technology of the day (railroad network, switchboard, computer). So far all of these explanations have been largely wrong (but slightly useful to various degrees). I suppose we'll get it right eventually, but there is no certainty we are correct today. 162.158.75.52 02:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I added material to address that aspect. 172.68.133.222 09:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)