patternMinor
What are the criticisms regarding the performance of HTM?
Viewed 0 times
thewhatareregardingperformancecriticismshtm
Problem
I just recently learned about the existence of this hierarchical temporal memory (HTM). I already read the document Hierarchical Temporal Memory: Concepts, Theory and Terminology (by Jeff Hawkins and Dileep George), which seems rather easy to understand, but one red flag is that the document is neither peer-reviewed nor attempting to explain why it should work in details.
I tried to look around for some independent sources. I found a few papers that compare its performance against others, but none explain why it performs well (or not). I noticed some comments claiming that it was looked down by mainstream expert, but I was unable to find any actual criticisms.
What are the criticisms regarding the performance of HTM? Since HTM is meant to be generic, any domain-specific criticism should be related to a more fundamental problem.
Furthermore, there are a huge amount of training data to use, enough even for multiple months training session. Basically, any criticisms regarding size or length of training is not relevant.
I tried to look around for some independent sources. I found a few papers that compare its performance against others, but none explain why it performs well (or not). I noticed some comments claiming that it was looked down by mainstream expert, but I was unable to find any actual criticisms.
What are the criticisms regarding the performance of HTM? Since HTM is meant to be generic, any domain-specific criticism should be related to a more fundamental problem.
Furthermore, there are a huge amount of training data to use, enough even for multiple months training session. Basically, any criticisms regarding size or length of training is not relevant.
Solution
Criticisms against Jeff Hawkins are well summarized in the following essay taken from
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/29/hawkins_ai_feature/
I myself believe that the HTM theory has a huge potential and will be a foundation of true machine intelligence. IBM recently announced to back up the HTM theory and started the Cortical Learning Center including some hundred members.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/536326/ibm-tests-mobile-computing-pioneers-controversial-brain-algorithms/
As is pointed out in the essay, Dillep George, a cofounder of Numenta, made the startup Vicarious, which attracted a huge amount of fund, of which fact suggests a potential of the HTM theory.
Source: Criticisms against Jeff Hawkins, The Register
His media-savvy, confident approach appears to have stirred up some
ill feeling among other academics who point out, correctly, that
Hawkins hasn't published widely, nor has he invented many ideas on his
own.
Numenta has also had troubles, partly due to Hawkins' idiosyncratic
view on how the brain works.
In 2010, for example, Numenta cofounder Dileep George left to found
his own company, Vicarious, to pick some of the more low-hanging fruit
in the promising field of AI. From what we understand, this amicable
separation stemmed from a difference of opinion between George and
Hawkins, as George tended towards a more mathematical approach, and
Hawkins to a more biological one.
Hawkins has also come in for a bit of a drubbing from the
intelligentsia, with NYU psychology professor Gary Marcus dismissing
Numenta's approach in a New Yorker article headlined Steamrolled by
Big Data.
Other academics El Reg interviewed for this article did not want to be
quoted, as they felt Hawkins' lack of peer-reviewed papers combined
with his entrepreneurial persona reduced the credibility of his entire
approach.
Hawkins brushes off these criticisms and believes they come down to a
difference of opinion between him and the AI intelligentsia.
"These are complex biological systems that were not designed by
mathematical principles [that are] very difficult to formalize
completely," he told us.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/29/hawkins_ai_feature/
I myself believe that the HTM theory has a huge potential and will be a foundation of true machine intelligence. IBM recently announced to back up the HTM theory and started the Cortical Learning Center including some hundred members.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/536326/ibm-tests-mobile-computing-pioneers-controversial-brain-algorithms/
As is pointed out in the essay, Dillep George, a cofounder of Numenta, made the startup Vicarious, which attracted a huge amount of fund, of which fact suggests a potential of the HTM theory.
Source: Criticisms against Jeff Hawkins, The Register
His media-savvy, confident approach appears to have stirred up some
ill feeling among other academics who point out, correctly, that
Hawkins hasn't published widely, nor has he invented many ideas on his
own.
Numenta has also had troubles, partly due to Hawkins' idiosyncratic
view on how the brain works.
In 2010, for example, Numenta cofounder Dileep George left to found
his own company, Vicarious, to pick some of the more low-hanging fruit
in the promising field of AI. From what we understand, this amicable
separation stemmed from a difference of opinion between George and
Hawkins, as George tended towards a more mathematical approach, and
Hawkins to a more biological one.
Hawkins has also come in for a bit of a drubbing from the
intelligentsia, with NYU psychology professor Gary Marcus dismissing
Numenta's approach in a New Yorker article headlined Steamrolled by
Big Data.
Other academics El Reg interviewed for this article did not want to be
quoted, as they felt Hawkins' lack of peer-reviewed papers combined
with his entrepreneurial persona reduced the credibility of his entire
approach.
Hawkins brushes off these criticisms and believes they come down to a
difference of opinion between him and the AI intelligentsia.
"These are complex biological systems that were not designed by
mathematical principles [that are] very difficult to formalize
completely," he told us.
Context
StackExchange Computer Science Q#13089, answer score: 6
Revisions (0)
No revisions yet.