Timothy Y. Chow
tchow at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 3 11:23:05 EDT 2007
"Mitch Harris" <maharri at gmail.com> wrote:
> See the article in the New Yorker
> about a neural network that has better-than-human performance in
> predicting income of movies based on plot.
That's a fascinating article...thanks for the pointer. However, your
summary is a little misleading. Two or three human beings have to read
through the screenplay or watch the movie and decide what features to
extract and plug into the neural network. Plus, it sounds like the humans
have to make judgments like, "emotional connection between lead character
and little child in scene 4 rates an 8 out of 10." That's a huge amount
of human intervention.
On the other hand, the article also mentions a hit-song analyzer that
sounds like it requires very little human intervention (though it's hard
to tell for sure from the article). That's pretty impressive.
> To me, it seems like cheating to allow a very large neural network as
> a proposed solution to an AI-complete problem.
Perhaps, but (artificial) neural networks haven't yet proved to be a
silver bullet, so I see no reason to rule them out. Neural nets can't
play a decent game of go or translate Shakespeare into good Chinese.
More information about the FOM