Randy Crawford DL has nothing to do with biology. This is Comp Sci people trying to hype the use of DL as somehow “brain” like. It is not. I study both and all I can say it is not. The animal visual sensory systems and how it is processed in a nervous system is nothing like how Covnets work.
Carlos E. Perez Thank you for pointing out #3! However, #5 is false. DL is mathematics and I would say to anyone that says otherwise, is probably more a computer scientist and less a mathematician. If DL has no basis in biology, which it does not, then what is its base? There is no magic to DLs no matter how comp sci people can be distracted to think so. I don’t think computer scientist do themselves any favors by talking like DLs are magical. All this does is show their ignorance to their science. Anyone that studies connectomics can see in an instance how DLs work and how primitive they are. Not to say there is anything wrong with DL, there is not, but the fact that #s 3 and 4 need to be on this infograph tells me that people are perpetuating false information continuously. Lets be true scientists, and understand the truth before we talk about a subject. The first mistake was to call neural networks “neural networks”.