> The major component of what we call intelligence is purely predictive.

Making more unfounded, nonsensical claims does not reinforce your first unfounded, nonsensical claim.

I'm sure statisticians would love it if the human mind were an inference machine, but that doesn't make it one. Your point of view on this is faith-based.

▲

cubefox 2 days ago | parent [-]

His view aligns both with a leading neuroscience explanation of the brain (predictive coding [1]) and with Active Inference / the Free Energy principle [2] from optimal control theory. A similar theory of intelligence, called H-JEPA (hierarchical joint embedding predictive architecture) [3] is also put forward by Yann LeCun, a major AI pioneer. Another AI pioneer, Jürgen Schmidhuber, subsequently criticized LeCun's theory, but not for being faulty, but for rehashing ideas published in several papers from the 1990s onward. [4]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle#Active_i...

3: https://openreview.net/forum?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf

4: https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/lecun-rehash-1990-2022.html

	▲	devmor a day ago \| parent [-]
		The Bayesian brain model is an unfalsifiable, faith-based mechanism - as I alluded to in my previous comment. Real science is done with it as a starting point, but it is not real science and claiming that it is an accurate representation of the human mind carries as much merit as claiming that "the soul" is what powers human intellect.