Difference between revisions of "Talk:2173: Trained a Neural Net"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(reply)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
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! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 19:38, 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! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2173%3A_Trained_a_Neural_Net&type=revision&diff=176369&oldid=176354 it here?] I am happy to replace the many links to one at an intermediate page, e.g.[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T166929#5319562] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.91|172.68.189.91]] 23:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:40, 9 July 2019


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)