> The implicit argument is that one can't engineer something one doesn't understand.
Isn't that easy to debunk?
I'd be hard pressed to implement an algorithm that can control a double-jointed inverted pendulum without reading up on control theory again.
But I can instead read up on neural networks and implement one that can be trained to control the pendulum.
For a more advanced example, I would never be able implement speech recognition explicitly by writing a regular program. But I could probably implement a passable one using neural networks and lots of training material.
How is this not "engineer something one doesn't understand"?
Isn't that easy to debunk?
I'd be hard pressed to implement an algorithm that can control a double-jointed inverted pendulum without reading up on control theory again.
But I can instead read up on neural networks and implement one that can be trained to control the pendulum.
For a more advanced example, I would never be able implement speech recognition explicitly by writing a regular program. But I could probably implement a passable one using neural networks and lots of training material.
How is this not "engineer something one doesn't understand"?