[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Care to state the exact problem you were having?
My thought is scalability is to do entirely with speed availability
The problems with bolting together NN and GA are so numerous it is hard
to know where to begin. For one thing, you cannot represent structured
information with NNs unless you go to some trouble to add extra
architecture. Most NNs can only cope with single concepts learned in
isolation, so if you show a visual field containing 5,000 copies of the
letter 'A', all that happens is that the 'A' neuron fires.
If you do find some way to get around this problem, your solution will
end up being the tail that wags the dog: the NN itself will fade into
relative insignificance compared to your solution.
Richard Loosemore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Mottram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] interesting Google Tech Talk about Neural Nets
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:48:08 +0000
On 03/03/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dont you see the way to go on Neural nets is hybrid with genetic
algorithms in mass amounts?
I experimented with this combination in the early 1990s, and the
results were not very impressive. Such systems still suffered from
extremely slow learning and poor scalability.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
