The DOI matches its Crossref record; 280 of the 282 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet; none of the 393 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Building machines that learn and think like people
Open accessAbstract
Recent progress in artificial intelligence has renewed interest in building systems that learn and think like people. Many advances have come from using deep neural networks trained end-to-end in tasks such as object recognition, video games, and board games, achieving performance that equals or even beats that of humans in some respects. Despite their biological inspiration and performance achievements, these systems differ from human intelligence in crucial ways. We review progress in cognitive science suggesting that truly human-like learning and thinking machines will have to reach beyond current engineering trends in both what they learn and how they learn it. Specifically, we argue that these machines should (1) build causal models of the world that support explanation and understanding, rather than merely solving pattern recognition problems; (2) ground learning in intuitive theories of physics and psychology to support and enrich the knowledge that is learned; and (3) harness compositionality and learning-to-learn to rapidly acquire and generalize knowledge to new tasks and situations. We suggest concrete challenges and promising routes toward these goals that can combine the strengths of recent neural network advances with more structured cognitive models.
Checked 2026-10-05 · 2 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from a shortened version of the paper’s full text (it is longer than we read).
TL;DR
The paper argues that deep learning systems can match or exceed human performance on some pattern-recognition tasks but still lack key ingredients of human-like learning and thought, especially causal model building, intuitive physics and psychology, compositionality, and learning-to-learn. It uses handwritten character learning and the Atari game Frostbite as challenge problems to show where current systems fall short and to propose routes toward more human-like machines.
Key findings
- The DQN needed about 924 hours of unique experience per Atari game, roughly 500 times the approximately 2 hours given to a professional gamer, and achieved less than 10% of human-level Frostbite performance in a controlled test; later variants reached 83% and 172% of the expert score but still required far more experience. In the authors’ informal play, after watching about 2 minutes of expert video, they reached expert-comparable Frostbite scores within 15–20 minutes of practice.
- On handwritten characters, deep convolutional networks approach human error on MNIST at 0.2%, but one-shot learning differs sharply: Bayesian program learning achieved human-level one-shot classification and generation after pretraining on five alphabets (about 150 character types), whereas deep ConvNets had 23% error versus 4% for humans with five alphabets, and 30% error with 30 alphabets.
- AlphaGo was initially trained on 28.4 million positions from 160,000 human games and then improved through 30 million self-play games, while Lee Sedol is estimated to have played around 50,000 games in his life; the paper uses this contrast to argue that human-like understanding and flexible generalization remain distinct from benchmark performance.
- The paper proposes core ingredients for human-like intelligence: intuitive physics, intuitive psychology, compositionality, causality, learning-to-learn, and fast approximate inference or model-free support for slower model-based reasoning.
Methods
- Conceptual review and synthesis drawing on cognitive science, developmental psychology, and artificial intelligence; no new formal experiment is reported.
- Two running challenge problems are used: the Characters Challenge for one-shot handwritten character concept learning, and the Frostbite Challenge for deep reinforcement learning control.
- The analysis contrasts pattern recognition with model building, reviews evidence on human learning and machine learning, and proposes integration routes; it also includes informal author play of Frostbite after watching expert videos.
Limitations
- Stated: the ingredient list is not intended to be complete; language is acknowledged as essential but not developed; the authors remain agnostic about whether the ingredients are innate or learned; and the focus is on neural networks, with probabilistic machine learning largely beyond scope.
- Evident: there is no controlled empirical study; the Frostbite human comparison relies on informal author play and prior experience; and the challenge comparisons may be confounded by humans’ extensive prior knowledge, which the authors acknowledge but do not fully resolve.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
267 Not checked yet · 224 Own interpretation · 128 No basis given · 9 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Humans, after playing just a small number of games over a span of minutes, can understand the game and its goals well enough to perform better than deep networks do after almost a thousand hours of experience”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If humans are able to first watch an expert playing for a few minutes, they can learn even faster”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The learned DQN network is also rather inflexible to changes in its inputs and goals”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Random play achieves a score of 65.2”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“after watching videos of expert play on YouTube for just 2 minutes, we found that we were able to reach scores comparable to or better than the human expert reported in Mnih et al. (2015) after at most 15 to 20 minutes of total practice”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. (2015)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“they can learn to play better than chance within a few minutes”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in which people substantially outperform current DQN approaches”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“even non-professional humans can grasp the basics of the game after just a few minutes of play”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a physics-engine reconstruction of a tower of wooden blocks from the game Jenga can be used to predict whether (and how) a tower will fall, finding close quantitative fits to how adults make these predictions”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Battaglia et al. 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It has been shown to generalize, but also only in limited ways (e.g., from towers of two and three cubes to towers of four cubes)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Causality is an important factor in the model's success in classifying and generating new examples after seeing just a single example of a new concept (Lake et al. 2015a) (Fig. 5B).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2015a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These tasks include generating new examples (Figs.1A-ii and 5B), parsing objects into their essential components (Fig. 1A-iii), and generating new concepts in the style of a particular alphabet (Fig. 1A-iv).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Deep neural networks have at least a limited notion of compositionality.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These tasks include generating new examples (Figs.1A-ii and 5B), parsing objects into their essential components (Fig. 1A-iii), and generating new concepts in the style of a particular alphabet (Fig. 1A-iv).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the generative model for characters using BPL does resemble the steps of writing, although even more causally faithful models are possible.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These tasks include generating new examples (Figs.1A-ii and 5B), parsing objects into their essential components (Fig. 1A-iii), and generating new concepts in the style of a particular alphabet (Fig. 1A-iv).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the BPL of learning handwritten characters, causality is operationalized by treating concepts as motor programs, or abstract causal descriptions of how to produce examples of the concept, rather than concrete configurations of specific muscles (Fig. 5A).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This algorithm can then learn new games faster than a randomly initialized DQN: Scores that might have taken 4 or 5 million frames of learning to reach might now be reached after 1 or 2 million frames of practice.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parisotto et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Previously learned primitive actions and larger generative pieces can be re-used and re-combined to define new generative models for new characters (Fig. 5A).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But to perform well, current neural network approaches require much more pre-training than do people or our Bayesian program learning approach.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In at least some domains, people may not have an especially clever solution to this problem, instead grappling with the full combinatorial complexity of theory learning (Ullman et al. 2012b).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ullman et al. 2012b
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BPL transfers readily to new concepts because it learns about object parts, sub-parts, and relations, capturing learning about what each concept is like and what concepts are like in general.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For BPL, pre-training with characters in only five alphabets (for around 150 character types in total) is sufficient to perform human-level one-shot classification and generation of new examples.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consistent with the idea of cooperation between learning systems, a recent experiment demonstrated that model-based behavior becomes automatic over the course of training (Economides et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Economides et al. 2015
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“these claims usually pertain to the cellular and synaptic levels, with few connections made to systems-level neuroscience and subcortical brain organization”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Edelman 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In recent experiments, Tsividis et al. (2015) found that children can use high-level abstract features of a domain to guide hypothesis selection, by reasoning about distributional properties like the ratio of seeds to flowers, and dynamical properties like periodic or monotonic relationships between causes and effects (see also Magid et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tsividis et al. 2015
- Not checked yetcites Magid et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“backpropagation has been of obviously great value in engineering today's best pattern recognition systems.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The NTM has been trained to perform sequence-to-sequence prediction tasks such as sequence copying and sorting”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graves et al. 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“people need to see just one or a few examples of a new concept before being able to recognize new examples, generate new examples, and generate new concepts based on related ones”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6. Looking forward
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fig. 1A
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“neural programmer-interpreters learn to represent and execute algorithms such as addition and sorting from fewer examples, by observing inputoutput pairs (like the NTM and DNC), as well as execution traces”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reed & Freitas 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the incorporation of attention has led to substantial performance gains in a variety of domains, including in machine translation (Bahdanau et al. 2015), object recognition (Mnih et al. 2014), and image caption generation (Xu et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bahdanau et al. 2015
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2014
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in DL, the internal structure, or “model,” accumulates at later layers, and is effectively constructing “scaffolds” over the learning process that are then used to train subsequent layers”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Caglar & Hanson 2016
- Not checked yetcites Saxe 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“during caption generation, the attentional window has been shown to track the objects as they are mentioned in the caption”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al. 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it was only recently that a computer program -AlphaGo -first beat a world-class player (Chouard 2016) by using a combination of deep convolutional neural networks (ConvNets) and Monte-Carlo Tree Search (Silver et al. 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chouard 2016
- Not checked yetcites Silver et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In generative neural network models, attention has been used to concentrate on generating particular regions of the image rather than the whole image at once”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gregor et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if you are carrying a number of small creatures in a closed steel box, you can predict that as long as the box remains completely closed, the creatures will remain inside.This prediction can be made without knowing anything about the creatures and the way they move, without knowing the initial positions or shapes of the box or the creatures, and without knowing the trajectory of the”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Third, there is extensive evidence that in many cases where the actual physics is simple, humans make large, systematic errors.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, Chinese-American children are more sensitive to whether there is consensus about a behavior or information than Euro-American children (Corriveau & Harris 2010;Corriveau et al. 2013;DiYanni et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corriveau & Harris 2010
- Not checked yetcites Corriveau et al. 2013
- Not checked yetcites DiYanni et al. 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Such cultural differences in attending to social information in observational learning situations persist into adulthood (Mesoudi et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mesoudi et al. 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Culturally specific ethno-theories of how children learn (Clegg et al. 2017;Corriveau et al. 2013;Harkness et al. 2007;Super & Harkness 2002) and the learning opportunities to which children have access (Kline 2015;Rogoff 2003) shape their ability to learn through observation.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clegg et al. 2017
- Not checked yetcites Corriveau et al. 2013
- Not checked yetcites Harkness et al. 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The best findings from such work, although far from final reduction-to-practice, arguably involve the appearance of crude or primitive machine personalities and identities from socially learned intra-/interpersonal relationships possessing cognitiveemotional valences.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By pre-school, children from non-WEIRD cultures where observational learning is expected and socialized outperform children from WEIRD cultures in observational learning tasks (Correa-Chávez & Rogoff 2009;Mejía-Arauz et al. 2005).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Correa-Chávez & Rogoff 2009
- Not checked yetcites Mejía-Arauz et al. 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research suggests that from early infancy, children display a core set of abilities that shape their reasoning about the world, including reasoning about both inanimate objects (intuitive physics [e.g., Spelke 1990]) and animate social beings (intuitive psychology [e.g., Dennett 1987;Meltzoff & Moore 1995]).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spelke 1990
- Not checked yetcites Dennett 1987
- Not checked yetcites Meltzoff & Moore 1995
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This situation also draws on humans' ability to learn by observing others and, like the development of false-belief understanding, children's ability to learn through observation as well as through verbal testimony, which is heavily influenced by sociocultural inputs (Harris 2012).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Harris 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, research that has examined children's intuitive theories in different cultural settings has suggested the potential for both cross-cultural continuity and variation in their development.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As early as late infancy, sociocultural inputs such as how parents direct children's attention, or the typical structure of parent-child interaction, may lead to differences in the way children attend to events for the purpose of observational learning (Chavajay & Rogoff 1999).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chavajay & Rogoff 1999
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human reasoners, by contrast, can deal with information that is radically incomplete.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It is clear the DL nets are not normally trained with anything like the experiences had by the developing child, whose learning is based on broad, multisensory experience and is cumulative, with new motor and cognitive skills building on old (Vygotsky 1978).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vygotsky 1978
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, similar reported strategies for machine architectures, algorithms, and performance demonstrate only marginal success when used as protocols to reach nearer cognitive-emotional humanness in trending social robot archetypes”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arbib & Fellous 2004
- Not checked yetcites Asada 2015
- Not checked yetcites Berdahl 2010
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Even simplistic artificial cognitive-emotional profiles and personalities thus effect varying control over acquisition and lean of machine domain-general/-specific knowledge, perception and expression of flat or excessive machine affect, and rationality and use of inferential machine attitudes/opinions/beliefs”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arbib & Fellous 2004
- Not checked yetcites Asada 2015
- Not checked yetcites Berdahl 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, people are capable of predicting characteristics of an end state for problems where it is impossible to predict the intermediate states in detail, as the example of the creatures in the box illustrates.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The causal processes that generated each of these are very different; and yet a person familiar with cats will recognize any of these depictions, even if they know little of the causal processes underlying sculpture or the formation of clouds.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“For example, a model that combines analogy with visual processing of relational representations has achieved human-level performance on Raven's Progressive Matrices test (Lovett & Forbus 2017).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lovett & Forbus 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current distributed representations have difficulty handling even one or two relations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the Companion cognitive architecture can use rich relational representations and analogy to perform distant transfer.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Further, it progresses from simple to complex models in an order that corresponds to the order found in children (Friedman et al. 2010).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Friedman et al. 2010
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Second, qualitative representations combined with analogy been used to model aspects of conceptual change.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Further, the results from adversarial training indicate that deep learning systems do not construct human-like intermediate representations (Goodfellow et al. 2015; see also target article).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goodfellow et al. 2015
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“People frequently draw inferences from analogous situations, sometimes without awareness of doing so (Day & Gentner 2007).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Day & Gentner 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Learning games with a previously learned analogous game led to more rapid learning than learning without such an analog (Hinrichs & Forbus 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hinrichs & Forbus 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simulating humans on these tasks requires between 10 and 100 relations per example.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, on the link plausibility task, in which simple knowledge bases (Freebase, WordNet) are analyzed so that the plausibility of new queries can be estimated (e.g., Is Barack Obama Kenyan?), a combination of analogy and structured logistic regression achieved state-of-the-art performance, with orders of magnitude fewer training examples than distributed representation systems (Liang & For”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liang & Forbus 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, computational models of structure mapping's matching, retrieval, and generalization operations have been used to simulate a wide range of phenomena, including geometric analogies, transfer learning during problem solving, and moral decision making (Forbus et al. 2017).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Forbus et al. 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Human intuitive knowledge concerns relationships such as”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, using a series of sketches to depict motion, a Companion learns intuitive models of force.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Experiments suggest that human children differ from chimpanzees primarily with respect to social knowledge (Herrmann et al. 2007;2010).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Herrmann et al. 2007
- Not checked yetcites Herrmann et al. 2010
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is abundant evidence from both children and adults that structure mapping (Gentner 1983) is a major route to acquiring and using knowledge.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gentner 1983
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“recently we showed that it can be used for learning of compositional features (Lázaro-Gredilla et al. 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lázaro-Gredilla et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These models have achieved remarkable gains in many domains spanning object recognition, speech recognition, and control (LeCun et al. 2015;Schmidhuber 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites LeCun et al. 2015
- Not checked yetcites Schmidhuber 2015
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sophistication of human-like reinforcement learning has yet to be realized in AI systems”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite their biological inspiration and performance achievements, these systems differ from human intelligence in crucial ways.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: People are better than machines at solving a range of difficult computational problems including concept learning, scene understanding, language acquisition, language understanding, and speech recognition.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These types of inferences further accelerate the learning of new tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From this perspective, the earlypresent capacities for intuitive physics and psychology are also causal models of the world.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although humans and neural networks may perform equally well on the MNIST digit recognition task and other large-scale image classification tasks, it does not mean that they learn and think in the same way.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The best results achieved using deep convolutional nets are very close to human-level performance at an error rate of 0.2% (Ciresan et al. 2012).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ciresan et al. 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By learning to recognize patterns in these inferences, the outputs of inference can be predicted without having to go through costly intermediate steps.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, researchers have trained generic networks to perform structured and even strategic tasks, such as the recent work on using a Deep Q-learning Network (DQN) to play simple video games (Mnih et al. 2015)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 2. Cognitive and neural inspiration in artificial intelligence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Training large-scale relatively generic networks is also the best current approach for object recognition (He et al. 2016;Krizhevsky et al. 2012;Russakovsky et al. 2015;Szegedy et al. 2014)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 2. Cognitive and neural inspiration in artificial intelligence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites He et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Krizhevsky et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Russakovsky et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, recent results applying convolutional nets to the far more challenging ImageNet object recognition benchmark have shown that human-level performance is within reach on that data set as well (Russakovsky et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Russakovsky et al. 2015
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mnih et al. (2015) combined ideas from deep learning and reinforcement learning to make a”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that compositionality and learning-to-learn are ingredients that make this type of rapid model learning possible”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Children possess the ability and desire to uncover underlying causes of sparsely observed events and use that knowledge to go beyond limited data.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is also important to clarify that the PDP perspective is compatible with”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 2. Cognitive and neural inspiration in artificial intelligence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rumelhart et al. 1986b
- Not checked yetcites Bottou [2014]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Infants have primitive object concepts that allow them to track objects over time and to discount physically implausible trajectories.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wellman & Gelman [1992]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neural network models and the PDP approach offer a view of the mind (and intelligence more broadly) that is sub-symbolic and often populated with minimal constraints and inductive biases to guide learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 2. Cognitive and neural inspiration in artificial intelligence
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It did, however, have particular trouble with Frostbite and other games that required temporally extended planning strategies.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The network was trained to play 49 classic Atari games, proposed as a test domain for reinforcement learning (Bellemare et al. 2013), impressively achieving human-level performance or above on 29 of the games.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bellemare et al. 2013
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But they require a lot of experience to reach this level.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the game of Frostbite provides incremental rewards for reaching each active ice floe, providing the DQN with the relevant sub-goals for completing the larger task of building an igloo”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“At the age of 2 months, and possibly earlier, human infants expect inanimate objects to follow principles of persistence, continuity, cohesion, and solidity”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spelke 1990
- Not checked yetcites Spelke et al. 1995
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The DQN learns to play Frostbite and other Atari games by combining a powerful pattern recognizer (a deep convolutional neural network) and a simple model-free reinforcement learning algorithm (Q-learning [Watkins & Dayan 1992]).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Watkins & Dayan 1992
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it is interesting that the DQN learns to play games at human-level performance while assuming very little prior knowledge, the DQN may be learning to play Frostbite and other games in a very different way than people do.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human learnersunlike DQN and many other deep learning systemsapproach new problems armed with extensive prior experience”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, the DQN incorporates experience replay, where each of these frames is replayed approximately eight more times on average over the course of learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Frostbite, it is possible to figure out the higher-level goal of building an igloo without incremental feedback”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, people learn more than how to do pattern recognition: they learn a concept, that is, a model of the class that allows their acquired knowledge to be flexibly applied in new ways.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Young children have a rich knowledge of intuitive physics”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“sparse feedback is a source of difficulty in other Atari 2600 games such as Montezuma's Revenge”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In Mnih et al. (2015), the DQN was compared with a professional gamer who received approximately 2 hours of practice on each of the 49 Atari games (although he or she likely had prior experience with some of the games).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The underlying cognitive representations can be understood as”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carey 2004
- Not checked yetcites Gopnik et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites Wellman & Gelman 1992
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Early in development, humans have a foundational understanding of several core domains”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spelke 2003
- Not checked yetcites Spelke & Kinzler 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“people require little or no retraining or reconfiguration, adding new tasks and goals to their repertoire with relative ease”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“people likely do not rely on incremental scoring in the same way when figuring out how to play a new game”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People learn a lot more from a lot less, and capturing these human-level learning abilities in machines is the Characters Challenge.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: People are better than machines at solving a range of difficult computational problems including concept learning, scene understanding, language acquisition, language understanding, and speech recognition.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“each domain is organized by a set of entities and abstract principles relating the entities to each other”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Success in this game requires a temporally extended plan to ensure the agent can accomplish a sub-goal (such as reaching an ice floe) and then safely proceed to the next sub-goal.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“With the full 924 hours of unique experience and additional replay, the DQN achieved less than 10% of human-level performance during a controlled test session (see DQN in Fig. 3).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changing the color or appearance of objects or changing the goals of the network would have devastating consequences on performance if the network is not retrained”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without these sub-goals, the DQN would have to take random actions until it accidentally builds an igloo and is rewarded for completing the entire level”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These additional abilities come for free along with the acquisition of the underlying concept.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even for these simple visual concepts, people are still better and more sophisticated learners than the best algorithms for character recognition.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: People are better than machines at solving a range of difficult computational problems including concept learning, scene understanding, language acquisition, language understanding, and speech recognition.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although both the original DQN and these more recent variants require multiple hours of experience to perform reliably better than random play”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. (2015)
- Not checked yetcites Schaul et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al. 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deep neural networks often need more data than people do to solve the same types of problems”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One alternative to a cue-based account is to use generative models of action choice, as in the Bayesian inverse planning, or Bayesian theory of mind (ToM), models of Baker et al. (2009) or the naive utility calculus models of Jara-Ettinger et al. (2015)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baker et al. 2009
- Not checked yetcites Jara-Ettinger et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“altering the setting of an agent or their goals and beliefs is difficult to reason about without understanding intuitive psychology”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each of these physical judgments may require new features or new training for a pattern recognition account to work at the same level as the model-based simulator”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When learning the meanings of words in their native language, children make meaningful generalizations from very sparse data”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carey & Bartlett 1978
- Not checked yetcites Landau et al. 1988
- Not checked yetcites Markman 1989
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a simple inductive bias, for example, the tendency to notice things that move other things, can bootstrap reasoning about more abstract concepts of agency”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ullman et al. 2012a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Intuitive psychology provides a basis for efficient learning from others, especially in teaching settings with the goal of communicating knowledge efficiently”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shafto et al. 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“at around 3 months of age, infants begin to discriminate antisocial agents that hurt or hinder others from neutral agents”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hamlin 2013
- Not checked yetcites Hamlin et al. 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, it is rich enough to support mental simulations that can predict how objects will move in the immediate future”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a great deal of goal-directed and socially directed actions can also be boiled down to a simple utility calculus”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jara-Ettinger et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A promising recent approach sees intuitive physical reasoning as similar to inference over a physics software engine”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bates et al. 2015
- Not checked yetcites Battaglia et al. 2013
- Not checked yetcites Gerstenberg et al. 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simulation-based models can also capture how people make hypothetical or counterfactual predictions”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It is generally agreed that infants expect agents to act in a goal-directed, efficient, and socially sensitive fashion”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Spelke & Kinzler 2007
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At around 6 months, infants have already developed different expectations for rigid bodies, soft bodies, and liquids”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rips & Hespos 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“learning roughly 9 or 10 new words each day, after beginning to speak through the end of high school”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bloom 2000
- Not checked yetcites Carey 1978
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children may only need to see a few examples of the concepts hairbrush, pineapple, and lightsaber, before they largely”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“intuitive psychology lets us infer the beliefs, desires, and intentions of the experienced player”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For unsupervised learning, the updates work toward gradually matching the statistics of the model's internal patterns with the statistics of the input data”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These expectations guide object segmentation in early infancy, emerging before appearance-based cues such as color, texture, and perceptual goodness”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This distinction is partially based on innate or early-present detectors for low-level cues, such as the presence of eyes, motion initiated from rest, and biological motion”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Premack & Premack 1997
- Not checked yetcites Schlottmann et al. 2006
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“they later distinguish between anti-social, neutral, and pro-social agents”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hamlin et al. 2007
- Not checked yetcites [2013]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Pre-verbal infants distinguish animate agents from inanimate objects”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Connectionist models in psychology have previously been applied to physical reasoning tasks such as balance-beam rules”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McClelland 1988
- Not checked yetcites Shultz 2003
- Not checked yetcites Buckingham & Shultz 2000
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“By their first birthday, infants have gone through several transitions of comprehending basic physical concepts such as inertia, support, containment, and collisions”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baillargeon 2004
- Not checked yetcites Baillargeon et al. 2009
- Not checked yetcites Hespos & Baillargeon 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Lerer et al. (2016) trained a deep convolutional network-based system (PhysNet) to predict the stability of block towers from simulated images similar to those in Figure 4A, but with much simpler configurations of two, three, or four cubical blocks stacked vertically”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lerer et al. 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For networks trained on object classification, deeper layers often become sensitive to successively higher-level features, from edges to textures to shapeparts to full objects”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yosinski et al. 2014
- Not checked yetcites Zeiler & Fergus 2014
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This richness and flexibility suggest that learning as model building is a better metaphor than learning as pattern recognition”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even with just a few examples, people can learn remarkably rich conceptual models”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The acquired knowledge supports reconfiguration to new tasks and new demands, such as modifying the goals of the game”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recent work has shown how this type of compositionality can be made more explicit, where neural networks can be used for efficient inference in more structured generative models (both neural networks and three-dimensional scene models) that explicitly represent the number of objects in a scene (Eslami et al. 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eslami et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Compositionality is also at the core of productivity: an infinite number of representations can be constructed from a finite set of primitives, just as the mind can think an infinite number of thoughts, utter or understand an infinite number of sentences, or learn new concepts from a seemingly infinite space of possibilities (Fodor 1975;Fodor & Pylyshyn 1988;Marcus 2001;Piantadosi 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fodor 1975
- Not checked yetcites Fodor & Pylyshyn 1988
- Not checked yetcites Marcus 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Structure sharing across concepts is accomplished by the compositional re-use of stochastic primitives that can combine in new ways to create new concepts”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet the ability for rapid”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, as related to the Characters Challenge, the way people learn to write a novel handwritten character influences later perception and categorization (Freyd 1983;1987).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Freyd 1983
- Not checked yetcites Freyd 1987
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the DQN of Mnih et al. (2015) played each Atari video game for approximately 924 hours of unique training experience”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. (2015)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a learner who has acquired the basics of the game could flexibly apply his or her knowledge to an infinite set of Frostbite variants”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Structural description models represent visual concepts as compositions of parts and relations, which provides a strong inductive bias for constructing models of new concepts (Biederman 1987;Hummel & Biederman 1992;Marr & Nishihara 1978;van den Hengel et al. 2015;Winston 1975).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Biederman 1987
- Not checked yetcites Hummel & Biederman 1992
- Not checked yetcites Marr & Nishihara 1978
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we developed an algorithm using Bayesian program learning (BPL) that represents concepts as simple stochastic programs: structured procedures that generate new examples of a concept when executed”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, the structure of the causal network underlying the features of a category influences how people categorize new examples (Rehder 2003;Rehder & Hastie 2001).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rehder 2003
- Not checked yetcites Rehder & Hastie 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But for the vast majority of cognitively natural conceptsthe types of things that children learn as the meanings of wordspeople are still far better learners than machines”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beyond concept learning, people also understand scenes by building causal models.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“neural networks, by virtue of their generality as highly flexible function approximators, are notoriously data hungry”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geman et al. 1992
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it has been difficult to learn neural network-style representations that effortlessly generalize new tasks that they were not trained on”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davis & Marcus 2015
- Not checked yetcites Marcus 1998
- Not checked yetcites [2001]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recent work on hierarchical DQNs shows that by providing explicit object representations to a DQN, and then defining sub-goals based on reaching those objects, DQNs can learn to play games with sparse rewards (such as Montezuma's Revenge) by combining these sub-goals together to achieve larger goals (Kulkarni et al. 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kulkarni et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Benchmark tasks such as the ImageNet data set for object recognition provide hundreds or thousands of examples per class”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Krizhevsky et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Russakovsky et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Compositionality is also central to the construction of other types of symbolic concepts beyond characters, where new spoken words can be created through a novel combination of phonemes (Lake et al. 2014), or a new gesture or dance move can be created through a combination of more primitive body movements.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the human capacity for one-shot learning suggests that these models are built upon rich domain knowledge rather than starting from a blank slate”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mikolov et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Mitchell et al. 1986
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To explain the role of causality in learning, conceptual representations have been likened to intuitive theories or explanations, providing the glue that lets core features stick, whereas other equally applicable features wash away (Murphy & Medin 1985).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy & Medin 1985
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Beyond the compositionality inherent in parts, objects, and scenes, compositionality can also be important at the level of goals and sub-goals.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human-level scene understanding involves composing a story that explains the perceptual observations, drawing upon and integrating the ingredients of intuitive physics, intuitive psychology, and compositionality.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“much of the recent progress in deep learning has been on pattern recognition problems, including object recognition, speech recognition, and (model-free) video game learning, that use large data sets and little domain knowledge”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For domains where program or theory learning occurs quickly, it is possible that people employ inductive biases not only to evaluate hypotheses, but also to guide hypothesis selection.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Humans typically learn only one or a few alphabets, and even with related drawing experience, this likely amounts to the equivalent of a few hundred character-like visual concepts at most.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A deep learning system trained on many video games may not, by itself, be enough to learn new games as quickly as people.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Popular algorithms for approximate inference in probabilistic machine learning have been proposed as psychological models (see Griffiths et al. [2012] for a review).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Griffiths et al. 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A complete account of learning and inference must explain how the brain does so much with limited computational resources (Gershman et al. 2015;Vul et al. 2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gershman et al. 2015
- Not checked yetcites Vul et al. 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When humans or machines make inferences that go far beyond the data, strong prior knowledge (or inductive biases or constraints) must be making up the difference (Geman et al. 1992;Griffiths et al. 2010;Tenenbaum et al. 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Geman et al. 1992
- Not checked yetcites Griffiths et al. 2010
- Not checked yetcites Tenenbaum et al. 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Neural networks can also learn-to-learn by optimizing hyper-parameters, including the form of their weight update rule (Andrychowicz et al. 2016), over a set of related tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Andrychowicz et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To gain the full benefit that humans get from learning-tolearn, however, AI systems might first need to adopt the more compositional (or more language-like, see sect.5) and causal forms of representations that we have argued for above.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is crucial that learning-to-learn occurs at multiple levels of the hierarchical generative process.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People seem to transfer knowledge at multiple levels, from low-level perception to high-level strategy, exploiting compositionality at all levels.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These models have been used to explain the dynamics of human learning-to-learn in many areas of cognition, including word learning, causal learning, and learning intuitive theories of physical and social domains (Tenenbaum et al. 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tenenbaum et al. 2011
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, we are beginning to understand how such methods could be implemented in neural circuits (Buesing et al. 2011; Huang & Rao 2014; Pecevski et al. 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buesing et al. 2011
- Not checked yetcites Huang & Rao 2014
- Not checked yetcites Pecevski et al. 2011
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further transfer occurs by learning about the typical levels of variability within a typical generative model.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although Monte Carlo methods are powerful and come with asymptotic guarantees, it is challenging to make them work on complex problems like program induction and theory learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The DRAW network performs both recognition and generation of handwritten digits using recurrent neural networks with a window of attention, producing a limited circular area of the image at each time step (Gregor et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gregor et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Monte Carlo sampling has been invoked to explain behavioral phenomena ranging from children's response variability (Bonawitz et al. 2014), to garden-path effects in sentence processing (Levy et al. 2009) and perceptual multistability (Gershman et al. 2012;Moreno-Bote et al. 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonawitz et al. 2014
- Not checked yetcites Levy et al. 2009
- Not checked yetcites Gershman et al. 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discovering new theories can also occur much more quickly.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the Frostbite Challenge, and in video games more generally, there is a similar interdependence between the form of the representation and the effectiveness of learning-to-learn.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, the interaction between representation and previous experience may be key to building machines that learn as fast as people.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, general world knowledge and previous video games may help inform exploration and generalization in new scenarios, helping people learn maximally from a single mistake or avoid mistakes altogether.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A more recent variant of DRAW was applied to generating examples of a novel character from just a single training example (Rezende et al. 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rezende et al. 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Claims of biological plausibility or implausibility usually rest on rather stylized assumptions about the brain that are wrong in many of their details.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“language builds on the core abilities for intuitive physics, intuitive psychology, and rapid learning with compositional, causal models that we focus on.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carey 2009
- Not checked yetcites Jackendoff 2003
- Not checked yetcites Kemp 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To build these representations from scratch might require exploring fundamental structural variations in the network's architecture, which gradient-based learning in weight space is not prepared to do.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We agree that humans have a much richer starting point than neural networks when learning most new tasks, including learning a new concept or learning to play a new video game.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“with language, older children become able to reason about a much wider range of physical and psychological situations”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carey 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These feed-forward mappings can be learned in various ways, for example, using paired generative/recognition networks (Dayan et al. 1995;Hinton et al. 1995) and variational optimization (Gregor et al. 2015;Mnih & Gregor 2014;Rezende et al. 2014), or nearest-neighbor density estimation (Kulkarni et al. 2015a;Stuhlmüller et al. 2013).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dayan et al. 1995
- Not checked yetcites Hinton et al. 1995
- Not checked yetcites Gregor et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Model-free learning is not, however, the whole story.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly to how probabilistic computations can be amortized for efficiency (see previous section), plans can be amortized into cached values by allowing the modelbased system to simulate training data for the model-free system (Sutton 1990).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sutton 1990
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Understanding which details matter and which do not requires a computational theory”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marr 1982
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“simply training conventional neural networks on many related tasks may not be sufficient to generalize in human-like ways for novel tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The intuitive physics and psychology of infants are likely limited to reasoning about objects and agents in their immediate spatial and temporal vicinity and to their simplest properties and states.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carey 2009
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“successful learning-to-learnor, at least, human-level transfer learningis enabled by having models with the right representational structure, including the other building blocks discussed in this article.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“trying to build these representations from scratch using backpropagation, Deep Q-learning, or any stochastic gradient-descent weight update rule in a fixed network architecture, may be unfeasible regardless of how much training data are available.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“There is indeed substantial evidence that the brain uses similar model-free learning algorithms in simple associative learning or discrimination learning tasks (see Niv 2009, for a review).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Niv 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the critical interstimulus interval for LTP is orders of magnitude smaller than the intervals that are behaviorally relevant in most forms of learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gallistel and Matzel (2013)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The DQN introduced by Mnih et al. (2015) used a simple form of model-free reinforcement learning in a deep neural network that allows for fast selection of actions.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Model-based planning is an essential ingredient of human intelligence, enabling flexible adaptation to new tasks and goals; it is where all of the rich model-building abilities discussed in the previous sections earn their value as guides to action.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we argued in our discussion of Frostbite, one can design numerous variants of this simple video game that are identical except for the reward function; that is, governed by an identical environment model of state-action-dependent transitions.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it would be especially challenging to try to implement the ingredients described in this article using purely Hebbian mechanisms.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existing data simply offer little constraint either way”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In particular, the phasic firing of midbrain dopaminergic neurons is qualitatively (Schultz et al. 1997) and quantitatively (Bayer & Glimcher 2005) consistent with the reward prediction error that drives updating of model-free value estimates.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schultz et al. 1997
- Not checked yetcites Bayer & Glimcher 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Intrinsic motivation also plays an important role in human learning and behavior (Berlyne 1966;Harlow 1950;Ryan & Deci 2007).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berlyne 1966
- Not checked yetcites Harlow 1950
- Not checked yetcites Ryan & Deci 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One implication of amortization is that solutions to different problems will become correlated because of the sharing of amortized computations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Learning-to-learn is a powerful ingredient, but it can be more powerful when operating over compositional representations that capture the underlying causal structure of the environment, while also building on intuitive physics and psychology.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“experiments that simultaneously manipulate the interstimulus and intertrial intervals demonstrate that no critical interval exists.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This trend is an avenue of potential integration of deep learning models with probabilistic models and probabilistic programming: Training neural networks to help perform probabilistic inference in a generative model or a probabilistic program (Eslami et al. 2016;Kulkarni et al. 2015b;Yildirim et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eslami et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Kulkarni et al. 2015b
- Not checked yetcites Yildirim et al. 2015
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the cognitive significance of any biologically grounded form of Hebbian learning is unclear.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the value functions and policies that AlphaGo learns seem unlikely to generalize as flexibly and automatically as people.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“there is abundant evidence that model-free mechanisms play a pervasive role in human learning and decision making”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kahneman 2011
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“tackling the architecture challenge is fundamental to success in developing human-level AI systems”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“techniques have been developed that significantly reduce the data requirements of this and related model-free learning methods, including prioritized memory replay (Schaul et al. 2016), improved exploration methods (Bellemare et al. 2016), and techniques for episodic reinforcement learning (Blundell et al. 2016)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schaul et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Bellemare et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Blundell et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the variants described above would require significant reprogramming and retraining, directed by the smart humans who programmed AlphaGo, not the system itself.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“humanlevel intelligence can be achieved only through open-ended learning, that is, the cumulative learning of progressively more complex skills and knowledge, driven by intrinsic motivations”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Weng et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Baldassarre et al. 2013b
- Not checked yetcites Baldassarre 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distinctive structural feature of the human brain is its synthesis of uniformity and diversity.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each model seems to learn genuine programs from examples, albeit in a representation more like assembly language than a high-level programming language.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many commonplace acts of creativity are combinatorial, meaning they are unexpected combinations of familiar concepts or ideas”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Boden 1998
- Not checked yetcites Ward 1994
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attention also allows larger models to be trained without requiring every model parameter to affect every output or action.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the full project of building machines that learn and think like humans must have language at its core.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Associative memory is a fundamental component of human intelligence”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It helps to coordinate complex, often sequential, outputs by attending to only specific aspects of the input, allowing the model to focus on smaller sub-tasks rather than solving an entire problem in one shot.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the recent machine learning literature offers many examples of learning systems conquering tasks that had long eluded more hand-crafted approaches, including object recognition, speech recognition, speech generation, language translation, and (significantly) game play”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Silver et al. 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the comparative power and flexibility of people's inferences come from the causal and compositional nature of their representations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6. Looking forward
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The result is impressive, but the approachidentifying elements from a small class of items based on a reconstruction of how something might be generateddoes not readily generalize in many other situations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“And, by favoring certain artificial personality traits, such as openness, a learner machine's active and passive pedagogical experiences may be radically directed by the quality of teacher-student rapport (e.g., Thomaz & Cakmak 2013), enabling opportunities for superior nurturing and growth of distinctive, well-adjusted thoughtful machine behavior while, in part, restricting harmful rogue machine”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thomaz & Cakmak 2013
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the early onset of these abilities provides evidence that they may be universal, little research has examined their development in non-WEIRD (Western educated industrialized rich democratic) (Henrich et al. 2010) cultures (Legare & Harris, 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Henrich et al. 2010
- Not checked yetcites Legare & Harris, 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, where children learn to recognize letters significantly before they can write them at all well, 1 it seems doubtful that models of how an image is synthesized, play any necessary role in visual recognition even of letters, let alone of more complex entities.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DL networks.as currently organised, require that much experience precisely because they bring nothing but a learning algorithm to the task.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Humans' intuitive psychology and their corresponding ability to reason about others' mental states is just one element of why humans may be outperforming computers in this task.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“But, as we have argued elsewhere (Davis & Marcus 2014;2016), this model of physical reasoning is much too narrow, both for AI and for cognitive modeling.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davis & Marcus 2014
- Not checked yetcites Davis & Marcus 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the growth and operation of cognition are more closely analogous to case law than to scientific theory”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That 500 times as much experience neglects the prior experience that the human brought to the task.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The flexibility of children's core cognitive abilities to be shaped by sociocultural input is what makes human learning unique (Henrich 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Henrich 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biological evolution is not an existence proof for artificial universal intelligence.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They enable commonsense inferences to be made with little information, using qualitative mathematics.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Our second major claim is that qualitative representationsnot quantitative simulationsprovide much of the material of our conceptual structure, especially for reasoning about causality (Forbus & Gentner 1997).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Forbus & Gentner 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the human brain's efficiency and robustness derive from these biases.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“However, lateral connections are largely ignored in current generative models (Lee 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that (1) analogical comparison processes are central to human cognition; and (2) intuitive physical knowledge is captured by qualitative representations, rather than quantitative simulations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reasoning in humans, and in general artificial intelligence, requires bringing to bear knowledge across an extraordinarily wide range of subjects, levels of abstraction, and degrees of completeness.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trying to evolve intelligence without assumptions might therefore be a significantly harder problem than biological evolution.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we argue that analogy provides exactly the sort of rapid learning and reasoning that human cognition exhibits.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our view is that biological evolution, by trial and error, figured out a set of inductive biases that work well for learning in this world”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To do so, one does not need a full causal model of whom they want to talk to, what they will say, or what their goal is in calling.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exploiting inductive biases and the structure of the AI problem makes learning and inference more efficient.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intuitive psychology goes even further beyond what can be explained by sorts of generative models of action choice, discussed in the target article.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“First, qualitative representations provide a natural way to express some aspects of natural language semantics, for example,”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McFate & Forbus 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We agree that statistics are important, but they are insufficient.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this instance (and many others), there seems to be a mismatch between the currency of generative models and the sorts of inferences that humans can readily make.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“functional demands in human cognitive systems appear to require a dynamic mechanism that could resemble a packet-switched system (Schlegel et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schlegel et al. 2015
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the speed of inference in many cortical areas is more consistent with message passing (MP)-like algorithms”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mišićet al. ( 2014) have investigated how Markovian queuing networks (a form of messageswitched architecture) with primate brain-like connectivity could take advantage of small-world and rich-club topologies.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mišić et al. 2014
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Progress in understanding routing in the brain is already being made through simulations of dynamic signal flow on brain-like networks and in studies of brains themselves.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anger then characterizes a specific form of perception, planning, decision making, and behavior.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Packet switching as a general strategy may be more compatible with these requirements than alternative architectures.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it should be well accepted that almost any narrowly defined task can be”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Namely, goals come from specific needs, for example, from existential needs such as hunger or pain avoidance; sexual needs; the social need for affiliation, to be together with other people; the need for certainty related to unpredictability of the environment; and the need for competence related to ineffective coping with problems (Dörner 2001;Dörner & Güss 2013).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dörner 2001
- Not checked yetcites Dörner & Güss 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such rapid feedback is consistent with the notion that corticothalamic signals could function like the”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graham 2014
- Not checked yetcites Graham and Rockmore 2011
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without diversive exploration, mental models could not grow, because people would not seek new experiences (i.e., seek uncertainty to reduce uncertainty afterward).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“studies on topdown attention demonstrate the ability of the visual cortex to separate out objects even when they are highly overlapping and transparent (Cohen & Tong 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen & Tong 2015
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, we would expect a dynamic, possibly packet-switched system in the visual system, given limited windows of attention and acuity and the need for spatial remapping, selectivity, and invariance (Olshausen et al. 1993;Poggio 1984;Wiskott 2006;Wiskott and von der Malsburg 1996).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Olshausen et al. 1993
- Not checked yetcites Poggio 1984
- Not checked yetcites Wiskott 2006
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Sizemore et al. (2016) have shown that the abundance of weakly interconnected brain regions suggests a prominent role for parallel processing, which would be well suited to dynamic routing.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sizemore et al. 2016
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we would expect something like circuit switching in somatosensory and motor output systems, which tend to require dense, real-time communication.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Incorporating motivation (e.g., Maslow 1954;Sun 2016) in computational models of human intelligence can explain where goals come from.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maslow 1954
- Not checked yetcites Sun 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a fully trained artificial neural network generally cannot take on new or different tasks without substantial retraining and reconfiguration.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is growing evidence for the use of MP-like inference in cortical areas (Bastos et al. 2012;George & Hawkins 2009)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bastos et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites George & Hawkins 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Briggs and Usrey (2007) have shown that corticothalamic networks can pass signals in a loop in just 37 milliseconds.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Briggs and Usrey 2007
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This growth has also been much faster than the growth of the message-switched U.S. Postal Service (Giambene 2005; U.S. Postal Service 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Giambene 2005
- Not checked yetcites U.S. Postal Service 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which arrive at maximum a posteriori solutions using only local computations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“one of the missing components in deep learning models of cognitionand of most large-scale models of brain and cognitive functionis an understanding of how signals are selectively routed to different destinations in brains (Graham 2014;Graham and Rockmore 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graham 2014
- Not checked yetcites Graham and Rockmore 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that a view of human intelligence that focuses solely on cognitive factors misses crucial aspects of human intelligence.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Communication principles that allowed for the rapid rise and sustained development of the packet-switched Internet may provide insights relevant to understanding how evolution and development conspire to generate intelligent brains.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, what is almost more important is the need for competence, which drives people to explore new environments.This is also called diversive exploration (e.g., Berlyne 1966).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berlyne 1966
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MP could offer a happy medium where inference is fast, as in neural networks, while retaining MCMC's capability for answering arbitrary queries on the model.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other situations, emotions can trigger certain cognitive processes.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Using algebraic topology, Sizemore et al. (2016) provide evidence that human brains show loops of converging or diverging signal flow (see also Granger 2006).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sizemore et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Granger 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition to cognition, a more complete view of human intelligence must incorporate motivation and emotion, a viewpoint already stated by Simon:”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 1967
- Not checked yetcites Dörner & Güss 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some problem situations, for example, a person would get an”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“potentially giving rise to the ability of humans to imagine and recognize objects with surface appearances that are not prototypicallike a blanket made of bananas or a banana made of blankets.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that brain cells themselves are not motile enough to selectively deliver messages to their destination (unlike cells in the immune system, for example), there must be a routing protocol of some kind in neural systems to accomplish this.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Brain cells are not motile enough to selectively deliver messages to their destinations.
In the paper
“Evidence indicates that contours and surfaces are represented in a factored manner in the visual cortex (Zhou et al. 2000)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhou et al. 2000
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incorporating emotion into computational models of human intelligence can explain some aspects that the authors discuss as”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Lewandowsky and colleagues (2012) identify numerous factors that increase resistance to belief revision, including several that are societallevel (e.g., biased exposure to information) or motivational (e.g., vested interest in retaining a false belief).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewandowsky et al. 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The brain seamlessly merges bottom-up discriminative and topdown generative processes into a rapidly converging process of inference that combines the advantages of both: the rapidity of discriminative inference and the flexibility and precision of generative inference (Yildirim et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yildirim et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The appearance of rapid learning (e.g., one-shot classification) is explained as slow, gradient-based learning on a metaproblem (e.g., repeatedly solving one-shot classification problems drawn from a distribution).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Here, the gradient-based methods of neural networks have proven far more effective (see citations above).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Cognitive models, like Bayesian program learning (Lake et al. 2015a), rely more strongly on built-in knowledge.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2015a
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Well-educated adults regularly confuse basic ontological categories (Chi et al. 1994), distinctions between mental, biological, and physical phenomena that are fundamental to our models of the world and typically acquired in childhood (Carey 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chi et al. 1994
- Not checked yetcites Carey 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The recent startling improvements in computer vision (Krizhevsky et al. 2012), machine translation (Johnson et al. 2016), and question answering (Weston et al. 2015a) were possible, precisely because they avoided these limitations by foregoing symbolic compositionality altogether.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Krizhevsky et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Johnson et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Weston et al. 2015a
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, even at a glance, we understand visual scenes much more deeply than current models.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Most current deep learning models, however, do not build on prior experience.For example, the network in Mnih et al. (2013) that learns Atari games was trained from scratch on each new problem encountered.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2013
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, their approach avoids the hard question of where this startup software came from.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One example is training a recurrent network on translation tasks between multiple language pairs, which can lead to zero-shot (no training necessary) generalization, to translation between unseen language pairs (Johnson et al. 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Johnson et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as neural networks can exhibit rulelike behavior without building in explicit rules, we believe that they may not require a compositional, explicitly symbolic form of reasoning to produce human-like behavior.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such constraints amount to extracting shared principles that allow for accelerated learning when encountering other tasks that use them.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Brain-inspired neural networks gave us machines that can recognize objects robustly under natural viewing conditions.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A neural network model may require more time to train than humans.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, recent work on meta-learning (or learning-to-learn) in deep learning models provides a base for making good on this claim (Bartunov and Vetrov 2016;Santoro et al. 2016;Vinyals et al. 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bartunov and Vetrov 2016
- Not checked yetcites Santoro et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Vinyals et al. 2016
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The more complex, dynamic, and”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Funke 2010
- Not checked yetcites Güss Tuason & Gerhard 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“people still show resistance to updating their beliefs even when these sources of bias are removed, especially when new information conflicts with the existing causal model (Taylor & Ahn 2012).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor & Ahn 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The explicit compositional approach of Lake et al. is limited because it downplays the often complex interactions between the multitude of contextual variables in the task settings in which the representation is used.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach can be effective in a specific limited domain (such as Omniglot), precisely because the startup software can be hand selected by the modeler to match the specific requirements of that specific domain.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their modeling work relies on the use of combinatorially explosive search algorithms.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Machines could not do core object recognition (DiCarlo et al. 2012) until a few years ago (Krizhevsky et al. 2012).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites DiCarlo et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Krizhevsky et al. 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there are many examples in which incorrect causal models persist, despite strong counterevidence.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deep convolutional neural networks have conquered pattern recognition.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, because many naturalistic learning contexts are far more open ended, combinatorial search is not a practical algorithmic strategy.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“but also are transparent and comprehensible (see Gigerenzer 2001)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gigerenzer 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, investigating human information processing is helpful for ensuring that generated decisions are comprehensible (i.e., that they follow human reasoning patterns).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: People interacting with the system will probably want a justification for why it chose one interpretation over another.
In the paper
“In this case, known as the placebo effect, beliefs regarding a treatment can modulate the treatment response, positively or negatively, independently of whether a genuine treatment is delivered (Colagiuri et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Colagiuri et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The returned alternative depends on the viewer's inferences about agent-specific characteristics.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such networks represent statistical pattern recognition approaches that lack the ability to capture agent-specific information.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Making such inferences requires going beyond the attribution of simple goalsone needs to make assumptions about the roles and obligations of different agents.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Yamada et al. (2010) developed a series of models showing that hand-face touch behaviours in the foetus and hand looking in the infant self-organize through interaction of a non-uniform physical distribution of proprioceptive sensors across the body with basic neural plasticity loops.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yamada et al. (2010)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Causal models, especially those that affect beliefs about treatment efficacy, can even influence physiological responses to medical treatments.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Colagiuri et al. 2015
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Simple strategies such as fast-and-frugal trees (e.g., Hafenbrädl et al. 2016) might be well suited to providing justifications for decisions made in social situations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hafenbrädl et al. 2016
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“mechanical legs reproducing essential properties of human leg morphology generate human-like gaits on mild slopes without any computation (Collins et al. 2005)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Collins et al. 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that experience with particular causal relations is likely to correlate with experience of more superficial features, a more powerful AI model generator may still suffer similar problems when faced with the difficult decision of which model to apply to a new situation.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The power of neural networks lies in their ability to encode rich featural and contextual information.
- Rests on an assumption: Experience with particular causal relations likely correlates with experience of more superficial features.
In the paper
“In the social world, people often judge agents not only according to the agents' final decisions, but also according to the process by which they have arrived at these (e.g., Hoffman et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoffman et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Associative learning algorithms, of the kind often used in neural networks, are surprisingly susceptible to illusory correlations, for example, when a treatment actually has no effect on a medical outcome (Matute et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matute et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Work on low-level muscle synergies also showed how low-level sensorimotor constraints could simplify learning (Flash and Hochner 2005).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Flash and Hochner 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These errors affect both our causal beliefs and our choices.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“showing the guiding role of morphology in infant learning of locomotion (Oudeyer 2016)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oudeyer 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In current neural networks, there is typically no intuitive explanation for why a network reached a particular decision given received inputs (Burrell 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Burrell 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This, in turn, influences how we expect other people to make decisions (Bennis et al. 2010).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bennis et al. 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A common example is the belief that physical energy possesses psychological desires and intentionsa belief that even some physics students appear to endorse (Svedholm & Lindeman 2013).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Svedholm & Lindeman 2013
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The key role of physical embodiment in human learning has also been extensively studied in robotics”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pfeifer and Bongard 2007
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Even professional management consultants, whose job it is to use their prior experiences to help businesses solve novel problems, often fail to retrieve the most relevant prior experience to the new problem (Gentner et al. 2009).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gentner et al. 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When facing a new problem, humans often erroneously draw upon models that share superficial properties with the current problem, rather than those that share key structural relations (Gick & Holyoak 1980).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gick & Holyoak 1980
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Even when humans hold an appropriate causal model, they often fail to use it.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gick & Holyoak 1980
- Not checked yetcites Gentner et al. 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The physics of bodies and their interaction with their environment can spontaneously generate structure guiding learning and exploration (Pfeifer and Bongard 2007).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pfeifer and Bongard 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 156
- Probably not a substantial claim. 166
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even the best deep networks learn gradually over many thousands of game episodes, take a long time to reach good performance, and are locked into particular input and goal patterns”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We recently reported progress on this challenge using probabilistic program induction (Lake et al. 2015a) (see Glossary in Table 1), yet aspects of the full human cognitive ability remain out of reach.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2015a
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Human and PhysNet confidence were also correlated across towers, although not as strongly as for the approximate probabilistic simulation models and experiments of Battaglia et al. (2013)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lerer et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Battaglia et al. 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Impressively, PhysNet generalized to simple real images of block towers, matching human performance on these images, meanwhile exceeding human performance on synthetic images”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lerer et al. 2016
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Causal knowledge has also been shown to influence how people learn new concepts; providing a learner with different types of causal knowledge changes how he or she learns and generalizes.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Learning models of this form allows BPL to perform a challenging one-shot classification task at human-level performance (Fig. 1A-i) and to outperform current deep learning models such as convolutional networks (Koch et al. 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Koch et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In many cases, the network gets the key objects in a scene correct, but fails to understand the physical forces at work, the mental states of the people, or the causal relationships between the objects.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although it synthesizes impressive examples of handwriting in various styles, it requires a large training corpus and has not been applied to other tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graves 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But anecdotally, we find that humans can still reach these scores with a few minutes of practice, requiring far less experience than the DQNs.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although transfer learning and multitask learning are already important themes across AI, and in deep learning in particular, they have not yet led to systems that learn new tasks as rapidly and flexibly as humans do.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this level of pre-training, current neural networks perform much worse on classification and have not even attempted generation; they are still far from solving the Characters Challenge.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Deep reinforcement learning systems for playing Atari games have had some impressive successes in transfer learning, but they still have not come close to learning to play new games as quickly as humans can.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An attentional window is only a crude approximation of the true causal process of drawing with a pen, and in Rezende et al. (2016) the attentional window is not pen-like at all, although a more accurate pen model could be incorporated.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rezende et al. 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although it outperforms existing methods on various causal prediction tasks, it is unclear how to apply the approach to inferring rich hierarchies of latent causal variables, as needed for the Frostbite Challenge and especially the Characters Challenge.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lopez-Paz et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, as described in the Characters Challenge, people can quickly infer motor programs to draw a new character in a similarly guided processes.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The model demonstrates an impressive ability to make plausible generalizations that go beyond the training examples, yet it generalizes too broadly in other cases, in ways that are not especially human-like.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rezende et al. 2016
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many seemingly well-accepted ideas regarding neural computation are in fact biologically dubious, or uncertain at best”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Deep reinforcement learning is only just starting to address intrinsically motivated learning (Kulkarni et al. 2016;Mohamed & Rezende 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kulkarni et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Mohamed & Rezende 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is widely recognized that neural networks are far from implementing human language abilities.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exploration and creative innovation in the space of network architectures have not yet been made algorithmic.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although neuroscientists have not found any mechanisms for implementing backpropagation in the brain, neither have they produced definitive evidence against it.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deep learning systems have not yet shown they can work with these representations, but they have demonstrated the surprising effectiveness of gradient descent in large models with high-dimensional parameter spaces.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“these abilities elude even the best deep neural networks for character recognition (Ciresan et al. 2012), which are trained on many examples of each concept and do not flexibly generalize to new tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6. Looking forward
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ciresan et al. 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“current algorithms are still better at recognizing objects than understanding scenes, often getting the key objects right but their causal relationships wrong (Fig. 6).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fig. 6
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“neural networks do engage in model building, which is implicit, and cannot be dissociated from the learning process”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Caglar & Hanson 2016
- Not checked yetcites Cleeremans 1993
- Not checked yetcites Hanson & Burr 1990
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lee has probably played around 50,000 games in his entire life.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the DNC has been applied to solving block puzzles and finding paths between nodes in a graph after memorizing the graph.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graves et al. 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“people learn from fewer data and generalize in richer and more flexible ways.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6. Looking forward
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“AlphaGo is initially trained on 28.4 million positions and moves from 160,000 unique games played by human experts; it then improves through reinforcement learning, playing 30 million more games against itself.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Silver et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI can also draw on observations of expert players, but requires substantially greater input to achieve similar levels of performance.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The supervisory system appears to perform a variety of functions, such as goal generation (to create one's own goals and to function in real domains outside of the laboratory), strategy generation and evaluation (to create and evaluate potential strategies that might achieve goals), monitoring (to detect when one's goals are frustrated and to thereby trigger generation of new plans/strategies or”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shallice & Cooper [2011]
- Not checked yetcites Fox et al. [2013]
- Not checked yetcites Cooper [2016]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A large collection of research comparing the development of children's understanding of false belief in the United States, China, and Iran indicates that although typically developing children in all cultures show an improvement in false belief understanding over the course of ontogeny, the timing of this improvement differs widely-and such variability is potentially related to different socioc”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davoodi et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Liu et al. 2008
- Not checked yetcites Shahaeian et al. 2011
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, the differences between the causal processes that generate a cat and those that generate a dog are understood imperfectly, even by experts in developmental biology, and hardly at all by laypeople.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although contemporary DL approaches to, say, learning and playing Atari games undoubtedly employ psychologically unrealistic training regimes, and are undoubtedly inflexible with respect to changes to the reward/ goal structure, to fixate on these limitations overlooks the promise of such approaches.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Valence direction and magnitude often depend on the learner machine's disposition toward response priming/contagion, social facilitation, incentive motivation, and local/stimulus enhancement of observable demonstrator behavior”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the shape of the learning curves for single-layer NNs and for multilayered DLs are qualitatively different, with the former fitting a negative exponential function (“associative”) and the latter fitting a hyperbolic function (“accumulative”)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Caglar & Hanson 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no evidence that humans routinely generate comparably detailed traces or even that they are capable of doing so.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Human subjects often make errors in predicting the behavior of a balance beam (Siegler 1976), and most people find the behavior of a gyroscope mystifying.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Siegler 1976
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet even children can readily distinguish dogs from cats.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Birds build species-typical nests they have never seen built, improving over time, and apes know a branch that is too weak to hold them.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Decades of successful models have been built for many aspects of intuitive physics, and such models have also been used to ground scientific and engineering reasoning (Forbus 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Forbus 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This has enabled Companions to learn causal models via reading natural language texts, thereby improving their performance in a complex strategy game (McFate et al. 2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McFate et al. 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The studies by Dietvorst et al. (2015;2016;see Hutson 2017) suggest that people not only tend to distrust AIs, but also want to exert control, and hence responsibility, over the results such AIs deliver.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dietvorst et al. (2015
- Not checked yetcites [2016]
- Not checked yetcites Hutson 2017
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One's knowledge of the state of another agent's mind and one's ability to predict their action are necessarily extremely limited; nonetheless, powerful psychological reasoning can be carried out.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, physicists asked to solve a novel problem spontaneously use analogies to known systems (Clement 1988), and studies of working microbiology laboratories reveal that frequent use of analogies is a major determinant of success (Dunbar 1995).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clement 1988
- Not checked yetcites Dunbar 1995
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if you see a person pick up a telephone and dial, it is a good guess that they he or she is planning to talk to someone.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Analogical processes support children's learning of physical science (Chen & Klahr 1999;Gentner et al. 2016) and mathematics (Carey 2009;Mix 1999;Richland & Simms 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen & Klahr 1999
- Not checked yetcites Gentner et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Carey 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that even simple changes to the visual environment (as insignificant as changing the brightness) dramatically and adversely affect the performance of the algorithm, whereas humans are not affected by such perturbations at all.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we see model building as the hallmark of human-level learning, or explaining observed data through the construction of causal models of the world”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“People can learn to recognize a new handwritten character from a single example (Fig. 1A-i), allowing them to discriminate between novel instances drawn by other people and similar looking non-instances (Lake et al. 2015a;Miller et al. 2000).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2015a
- Not checked yetcites Miller et al. 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equipped with these general principles, people can learn more quickly and make more accurate predictions.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, model-free reinforcement learning algorithms, such as current instantiations of deep reinforcement learning, support fast control, but at the cost of inflexibility and possibly accuracy.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A primary job of learning is to extend and enrich these models and to build analogous causally structured theories of other domains.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The resurgence of recent interest in neural networks, more commonly referred to as”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 2. Cognitive and neural inspiration in artificial intelligence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites LeCun et al. [2015]
- Not checked yetcites Schmidhuber [2015]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Now, the leading approaches to speech recognition are fully neural network systems (Graves et al. 2013;Hannun et al. 2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graves et al. 2013
- Not checked yetcites Hannun et al. 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“where the high-level feature representations of these convolutional nets have also been used to predict patterns of neural response in human and macaque IT cortex (Khaligh-Razavi & Kriegeskorte 2014;Kriegeskorte 2015;Yamins et al. 2014), as well as human typicality ratings (Lake et al. 2015b) and similarity ratings (Peterson et al. 2016) for images of common objects.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 2. Cognitive and neural inspiration in artificial intelligence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Khaligh-Razavi & Kriegeskorte 2014
- Not checked yetcites Kriegeskorte 2015
- Not checked yetcites Yamins et al. 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This knowledge is often richly organized and theory-like in structure, capable of the graded inferences and productive capacities characteristic of human thought.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3. Challenges for building more human-like machines
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, the earlier an ingredient is present, the more likely it is to be foundational to later development and learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with state-of-the-art algorithms in machine learning, human learning is distinguished by its richness and its efficiency.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Children possess the ability and desire to uncover underlying causes of sparsely observed events and use that knowledge to go beyond limited data.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, planning in complex models is cumbersome and slow, making the speedaccuracy trade-off unfavorable for real-time control.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Once a causal model of a task is learned, humans can use the model to plan action sequences that maximize future reward.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the claim that a mind is a collection of general-purpose neural networks with few initial constraints is rather extreme in contemporary cognitive science.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3. Challenges for building more human-like machines
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“finding that deep learning models have yet to incorporate many of them, and so may be solving some problems in different ways than people do.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1. Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are better than machines at solving a range of difficult computational problems including concept learning, scene understanding, language acquisition, language understanding, and speech recognition.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Handwritten character recognition is also simpler than more general forms of object recognition; the object of interest is two-dimensional, separated from the background, and usually unoccluded.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Infants understand that other people have mental states like goals and beliefs, and this understanding strongly constrains their learning and predictions.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wellman & Gelman [1992]
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With a large amount of training data available, many algorithms achieve respectable performance, including Knearest neighbors (5% test error), support vector machines (about 1% test error), and convolutional neural networks (below 1% test error [LeCun et al. 1998]).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites LeCun et al. 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A different picture has emerged that highlights the importance of early inductive biases, including core concepts such as number, space, agency, and objects, as well as powerful learning algorithms that rely on prior knowledge to extract knowledge from small amounts of training data.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3. Challenges for building more human-like machines
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If an ingredient is present early in development, it is certainly active and available well before a child or adult would attempt to learn the types of tasks discussed in this paper.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some of the original work done under the banner of PDP (Rumelhart et al. 1986b) is closer to model building than pattern recognition, whereas the recent large-scale discriminative deep learning systems more purely exemplify pattern recognition (see Bottou [2014] for a related discussion).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 2. Cognitive and neural inspiration in artificial intelligence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rumelhart et al. 1986b
- Not checked yetcites Bottou [2014]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the years since, ConvNets continue to dominate, recently approaching human-level performance on some object recognition benchmarks (He et al. 2016;Russakovsky et al. 2015;Szegedy et al. 2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites He et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Russakovsky et al. 2015
- Not checked yetcites Szegedy et al. 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are at least two important differences: people learn from fewer examples and they learn richer representations, a comparison true for both learning handwritten characters and for learning more general classes of objects (Fig. 1).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People are better than machines at solving a range of difficult computational problems including concept learning, scene understanding, language acquisition, language understanding, and speech recognition.
In the paper
“For example, infants know that objects will persist over time and that they are solid and coherent.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 1.2. Overview of the key ideas
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wellman & Gelman [1992]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The network embodies the strongly empiricist approach characteristic of most connectionist models: very little is built into the network apart from the assumptions about image structure inherent in convolutional networks, so the network has to essentially learn a visual and conceptual system from scratch for each new game.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differences between the human and machine learning curves suggest that they may be learning different kinds of knowledge, using different learning mechanisms, or both.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human learners fundamentally take on different learning tasks than today's neural networks”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“More recent variants of the DQN perform better, and can even outperform the human tester (Schaul et al. 2016;Stadie et al. 2016;van Hasselt et al. 2016;Wang et al. 2016), reaching 83% of the professional gamer's score by incorporating smarter experience replay (Schaul et al. 2016), and 172% by using smarter replay and more efficient parameter sharing (Wang et al. 2016)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schaul et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“More recent work has shown how these game-specific networks can share visual features (Rusu et al. 2016) or be used to train a multitask network (Parisotto et al. 2016), achieving modest benefits of transfer when learning to play new games.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rusu et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Parisotto et al. 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By the time a child or an adult is picking up a new character or learning how to play Frostbite, he or she is armed with extensive real-world experience that deep learning systems do not benefit from”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4. Core ingredients of human intelligence
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition to recognizing new examples, people can also generate new examples (Fig. 1A-ii), parse a character into its most important parts and relations (Fig. 1A-iii) (Lake et al. 2012), and generate new characters given a small set of related characters (Fig. 1A-iv).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People never start completely from scratch, or even close to”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, people can efficiently integrate across multiple examples of a character to infer which have optional elements, such as the horizontal cross-bar in '7's, combining different variants of the same character into a single coherent representation.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People can integrate across multiple examples of a character to infer optional elements, such as the cross-bar in '7's, and combine variants into a single coherent representation.
In the paper
“The DQN was a significant advance in reinforcement learning, showing that a single algorithm can learn to play a wide variety of complex tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“people understand enough to invent or accept new goals, generalize over changes to the input, and explain the game to others”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“recent experiments showing that children seek out new data to distinguish between hypotheses, isolate variables, test causal hypotheses, make use of the data-generating process in drawing conclusions, and learn selectively from others”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cook et al. 2011
- Not checked yetcites Gweon et al. 2010
- Not checked yetcites Schulz et al. 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These domains include number (numerical and set operations), space (geometry and navigation), physics (inanimate objects and mechanics), and psychology (agents and groups)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although both people and models represent characters as a sequence of pen strokes and relations, people have a far richer repertoire of structural relations between strokes.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.1. The Characters Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“important physical concepts are present at ages far earlier than when a child or adult learns to play Frostbite, suggesting these resources may be used for solving this and many everyday physics-related tasks”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“people can learn models and use them for arbitrary new tasks and goals”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the key claim is that these ingredients play an active and important role in producing human-like learning and thought, in ways contemporary machine learning has yet to capture”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4. Core ingredients of human intelligence
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The core ingredients of human intelligence are not present in most current learning-based AI systems, and not all of them are present together.
In the paper
“The learning curve for the model of Wang et al. (2016) shows performance is approximately 44% after 200 hours, 8% after 100 hours, and less than 2% after 5 hours (which is close to random play, approximately 1.5%).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al. 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The DQN was trained on 200 million frames from each of the games, which equates to approximately 924 hours of game time (about 38 days), or almost 500 times as much experience as the human received.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although neural networks can learn multiple mappings or tasks with the same set of stimuliadapting their outputs depending on a specified goalthese models require substantial training or reconfiguration to add new tasks”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Collins & Frank 2013
- Not checked yetcites Eliasmith et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Rougier et al. 2005
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Mnih et al. (2015), the network architecture and hyper-parameters were fixed, but the network was trained anew for each game, meaning the visual system and the policy are highly specialized for the games it was trained on.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mnih et al. 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“together the domains are thought to be shared cross-culturally and partly with non-human animals”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Certainly, the core ingredients are enriched by this experience, and some may even be a product of the experience itself”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4. Core ingredients of human intelligence
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Liquids, for example, are expected to go through barriers, while solid objects cannot”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hespos et al. 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Young infants believe objects should move along smooth paths, not wink in and out of existence, not inter-penetrate and not act at a distance”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is clear that these abilities are early emerging and play an important role in human learning and thought”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intuitive psychology is another early-emerging ability with an important influence on human learning and thought”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An explicit agent representation can predict how such an agent will be helpful in new circumstances, whereas a bottom-up pixel-based representation is likely to struggle”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, people require far less experience to perform any particular task, and can generalize to many novel judgments and complex scenes with no new training required”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it seems to us that any full formal account of intuitive psychological reasoning needs to include representations of agency, goals, efficiency, and reciprocal relations”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, unlike in intuitive physics, simulation-based reasoning in intuitive psychology can be nested recursively to understand social interactions”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such cues are often sufficient but not necessary for the detection of agency”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these networks do not attempt to work with complex scenes as input, or a wide range of scenarios and judgments as in Figure 4”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the DQN probably does not parse a Frostbite screenshot in terms of stable objects or sprites moving according to the rules of intuitive physics”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to this hypothesis, people reconstruct a perceptual scene using internal representations of the objects and their physically relevant properties (such as mass, elasticity, and surface friction) and forces acting on objects (such as gravity, friction, or collision impulses)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 3.2. The Frostbite Challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By simulating these planning processes, people can predict what agents might do next, or use inverse reasoning from observing a series of actions to infer the utilities and beliefs of agents in a scene”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these algorithms implement learning as a process of gradual adjustment of connection strengths”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For supervised learning, the updates are usually aimed at improving the algorithm's pattern recognition capabilities”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These models formalize explicitly mentalistic concepts such as”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relative to physical ground truth, the intuitive physical state representation is approximate and probabilistic, and oversimplified and incomplete in many ways”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“infants also expect agents to act contingently and reciprocally, to have goals, and to take efficient actions toward those goals subject to constraints”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.1. Developmental start-up software
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Csibra 2008
- Not checked yetcites Csibra et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Spelke & Kinzler 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Relating data to their causal source provides strong priors for perception and learning, as well as a richer basis for generalizing in new ways and to new tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are also domains for which machine learners outperform human learners, such as combing through financial or weather data”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Beyond classification, concepts support prediction (Murphy & Ross 1994;Rips 1975), action (Barsalou 1983), communication (Markman & Makin 1998), imagination (Jern & Kemp 2013;Ward 1994), explanation (Lombrozo 2009;Williams & Lombrozo 2010), and composition (Murphy 1988;Osherson & Smith 1981)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy & Ross 1994
- Not checked yetcites Barsalou 1983
- Not checked yetcites Markman & Makin 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Networks trained for object recognition encode part-like features in their deeper layers (Zeiler & Fergus 2014), whereby the presentation of new types of objects can activate novel combinations of feature detectors.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zeiler & Fergus 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Handwritten characters are inherently compositional, where the parts are pen strokes, and relations describe how these strokes connect to each other.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the MNIST benchmark includes 6,000 examples of each handwritten digit”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites LeCun et al. 1998
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, at least for image and caption generation, these tasks have been mostly studied in the big data setting that is at odds with the impressive human ability to generalize from small data sets”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These abilities are not independent; rather they hang together and interact (Solomon et al. 1999), coming for free with the acquisition of the underlying concept”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Solomon et al. 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both cases, the algorithms are clearly using information less efficiently than a person learning to perform the same tasks”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A scene from the game is a composition of various object types, including birds, fish, ice floes, igloos, and so on (Fig. 2).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These programs allow the model to express causal knowledge about how the raw data are formed, and the probabilistic semantics allow the model to handle noise and perform creative tasks”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Representing this compositional structure explicitly is both more economical and better for generalization, as noted in previous work on object-oriented reinforcement learning (Diuk et al. 2008).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Diuk et al. 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The following sections discuss the three main ingredientscompositionality, causality, and learning-to-learnthat were important to the success of this framework and, we believe, are important to understanding human learning as rapid model building more broadly.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The success of the BPL framework in the Characters Challenge can be generalized to understanding human learning as rapid model building.
In the paper
“Lopez-Paz et al. (2015) introduced a discriminative, data-driven framework for distinguishing the direction of causality from examples.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lopez-Paz et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concept learning and vision models that use causality are usually generative (as opposed to discriminative; see Glossary in Table 1), but not every generative model is also causal.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Liberman et al. (1967) argued that the richness of speech perception is best explained by inverting the production plan, at the level of vocal tract movements, to explain the large amounts of acoustic variability and the blending of cues across adjacent phonemes.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liberman et al. 1967
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also suggests an additional way to build on the successes of deep learning, where efficient inference and scalable learning are important strengths of the approach.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hierarhical Bayesian models operating over probabilistic programs (Goodman et al. 2008;Lake et al. 2015a;Tenenbaum et al. 2011) are equipped to deal with theory-like structures and rich causal representations of the world, yet there are formidable algorithmic challenges for efficient inference.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goodman et al. 2008
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2015a
- Not checked yetcites Tenenbaum et al. 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether the person is a child or a seasoned gamer, it seems obvious that interacting with the birds and fish will change the game state in some way, either good or bad, because video games typically yield costs or rewards for these types of interactions (e.g., dying or points).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A causal model of Frostbite would have to be more complex, gluing together object representations and explaining their interactions with intuitive physics and intuitive psychology, much like the game engine that generates the game dynamics and, ultimately, the frames of pixel images.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, if such a system aims to learn compositionally structured causal models of each gamebuilt on a foundation of intuitive physics and psychologyit could transfer knowledge more efficiently and thereby learn new games much more quickly.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, whereas representing intuitive theories and structured causal models is less natural in deep neural networks, recent progress has demonstrated the remarkable effectiveness of gradient-based learning in high-dimensional parameter spaces.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incorporating causality may greatly improve these deep learning models; they were trained without access to causal data about how characters are actually produced, and without any incentive to learn the true causal process.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, richer and more structured models require more complex and slower inference algorithms, similar to how complex models require more data, making the speed of perception and thought all the more remarkable.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Computing a probability distribution over an entire space of programs is usually intractable, and often even finding a single high-probability program poses an intractable search problem.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most basically, they immediately parse the game environment into objects, types of objects, and causal relations between them.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BPL could also benefit from deeper forms of learning-tolearn than it currently does.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Graves ( 2014) learned a generative model of cursive handwriting using a recurrent neural network trained on handwriting data.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graves 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Capturing more human-like learning-to-learn dynamics in deep networks and other machine learning approaches could facilitate much stronger transfer to new tasks and new problems.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some of the important structure it exploits to generalize well is built in to the prior and not learned from the background pre-training, whereas people might learn this knowledge, and ultimately, a human-like machine learning system should as well.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Most prominently, it has been proposed that humans can approximate Bayesian inference using Monte Carlo methods, which stochastically sample the space of possible hypotheses and evaluate these samples according to their consistency with the data and prior knowledge (Bonawitz et al. 2014;Gershman et al. 2012;Ullman et al. 2012b;Vul et al. 2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bonawitz et al. 2014
- Not checked yetcites Gershman et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Ullman et al. 2012b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deep neural networks could play a role in two ways: by serving as a bottom-up proposer to make probabilistic inference more tractable in a structured generative model (sect.4.3.1)or by serving as the causal generative model if imbued with the right set of ingredients.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People also understand that video games like these have goals, which often involve approaching or avoiding objects based on their type.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If deep neural networks could adopt similarly compositional, hierarchical, and causal representations, we expect they could benefit more from learningto-learn.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In hierarchical Bayesian modeling (Gelman et al. 2004), a general prior on concepts is shared by multiple specific concepts, and the prior itself is learned over the course of learning the specific concepts (Salakhutdinov et al. 2012;2013).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gelman et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites Salakhutdinov et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Salakhutdinov et al. 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strong priors, constraints, or inductive bias needed to learn a particular task quickly are often shared to some extent with other related tasks.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.2. Learning as rapid model building
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This process might occur offline (e.g., in dreaming or quiet wakefulness), suggesting a form of consolidation in reinforcement learning (Gershman et al. 2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gershman et al. 2014
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Some evidence for inferential correlations in humans was reported by Gershman and Goodman (2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gershman and Goodman 2014
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Another avenue for potential integration is through differentiable programming (Dalrymple 2016), by ensuring that the programlike hypotheses are differentiable and thus learnable via gradient descenta possibility discussed in the concluding section (Section 6.1).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dalrymple 2016
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Language also facilitates more powerful learning-to-learn and compositionality (Mikolov et al. 2016), allowing people to learn more quickly and flexibly by representing new concepts and thoughts in relation to existing concepts”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mikolov et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Lupyan & Bergen 2016
- Not checked yetcites Lupyan & Clark 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“understanding language and its role in intelligence goes hand-in-hand with understanding the building blocks discussed in this article.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conjecture that a competent Frostbite player can easily shift behavior appropriately, with little or no additional learning, and it is hard to imagine a way of doing that other than having a model-based planning approach in which the environment model can be modularly combined with arbitrary new reward functions and then deployed immediately for planning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a marriage of flexibility and efficiency might be achievable if we use the human reinforcement learning systems as guidance.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Behavior can persist for weeks or months, whereas LTP decays to baseline over the course of days”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Power et al. 1997
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deep learning models could incorporate these ingredients through some combination of additional structure and perhaps additional learning mechanisms, but for the most part have yet to do so.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Schulz (2012b) has suggested that abstract structural properties of problems contain information about the abstract forms of their solutions.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3. Thinking Fast
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schulz 2012b
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Learned behavior is rapidly re-acquired after extinction (Bouton 2004), whereas no such facilitation is observed for LTP (Jonge & Racine 1985).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.2. Biological plausibility suggests theories of intelligence should start with neural networks
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bouton 2004
- Not checked yetcites Jonge & Racine 1985
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There may also be an intrinsic drive to reduce uncertainty and construct models of the environment (Edelman 2015;Schmidhuber 2015), closely related to learning-to-learn and multitask learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 4.3.2. Model-based and model-free reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Edelman 2015
- Not checked yetcites Schmidhuber 2015
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any approach to human-like AI, whether based on deep learning or not, is likely to gain from incorporating these ingredients.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.1. Comparing the learning speeds of humans and neural networks on specific tasks is not meaningful, because humans have extensive prior experience
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These capacities are in place before children master language, and they provide the building blocks for linguistic meaning and language acquisition”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 5.3. Language is essential for human intelligence. Why is
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carey 2009
- Not checked yetcites Jackendoff 2003
- Not checked yetcites Kemp 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“autonomous cars could more accurately predict pedestrian behavior by inferring mental states, including their beliefs (e.g., Do they think it is safe to cross the street?Are they paying attention?)and desires”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And like AlphaGo, they are also integrating model-free pattern recognition with model-based search.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“causality helps infuse the recognition of existing tools or the learning of new ones with an understanding of their use, helping to connect different object models in the proper way”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a human-like system would be able to learn both to recognize and to produce new instances from a small number of examples.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“looking at the brain can furnish important insights on how to face the architecture challenge”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Robots and personal assistants such as cell phones cannot be pretrained on all possible concepts they may encounter.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the human brain is more similar to a complex society of diverse neural networks, than to a large, single one”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Minsky 1986
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“deep learning and other learning paradigms can move closer to human-like learning and thought if they incorporate psychological ingredients”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6. Looking forward
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of psychological reasoning, along with other types of model-based causal and physical reasoning, are likely to be especially valuable in challenging and novel driving circumstances for which there are few relevant training data”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a system may be able to quickly learn new concepts by constructing them from pre-existing primitive actions, informed by knowledge of the underlying causal process and learning-to-learn.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are using their core intuitive psychology and aspects of their intuitive physics (spatial and object representations).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the fact that it cannot even conceive of these variants, let alone adapt to them autonomously, is a sign that it does not understand the game as humans do.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are learning-tolearn with compositional knowledge.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We see compositionality, causality, intuitive physics, and intuitive psychology as playing an increasingly important role in reaching true scene understanding.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two hemispheres seem to follow two opposite criteria: an analogicalintuitive one, gradient descent-like, and a digital-rational one, vector quantization-like.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perfect autonomous driving requires intuitive psychology.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In learning to play Go as quickly and as flexibly as they do, people are drawing on most of the cognitive ingredients this article has laid out.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.1. Promising directions in deep learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“other drivers on the road have similarly complex mental states underlying their behavior”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human intelligence is a prediction engine working on hypotheses, generated from a relatively small database and constantly verified through sequential sampling”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we think that much of the intelligence of the brain resides in its architecture”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the scene includes people acting or interacting, it will be nearly impossible to understand their actions without thinking about their thoughts and especially their goals and intentions toward the other objects and agents they believe are present.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For an autonomous agent to effectively navigate and perform tasks in this environment, the agent would need intuitive physics to properly reason about stability and support.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A holistic model of the scene would require the composition of individual object models, glued together by relations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In each case, the free combination of parts is not enough on its own: Although compositionality and learning-to-learn can provide the parts for new ideas, causality provides the glue that gives them coherence and purpose.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6.2. Future applications to practical AI problems
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“natural intelligence is still by far the best example of intelligence.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6. Looking forward
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human-like learning and decision making surely do depend upon rich internal models”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is not clear that detailed knowledge engineering will be realistically attainable in all areas we will want our agents to tackle”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Machine performance may rival or exceed human performance on particular tasks, and algorithms may take inspiration from neuroscience or aspects of psychology, but it does not follow that the algorithm learns or thinks like a person.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > 6. Looking forward
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future artificialintelligence systems will require sophisticated architectures, and knowledge of the brain might guide their construction”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the learning process must be informed and constrained by prior knowledge”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Open Peer Commentary
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“knowledge is grounded in exemplar-based learning and generalization, combined with high flexible generalization”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natural intelligence appears to combine the largely reactive perception-action cycle of RL with a more active action-perception cycle, in which the cognitive system can act and deliberatively explore in order to test hypotheses.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In intuitive psychology, many inferences proceed without detailed causal generative models.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lake et al.'s results are technically impressive, but may tell us little about object recognition in general.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The promise of DL networks (and at present it remains a promise) is that, with sufficiently broad training, they may support the development of systems that capture intuitive physics and intuitive psychology.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In physical reasoning, a model can be a set of constraints rather than a physics engine.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over time, these updates may even result in distinct operating systems.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Within this account the routine system may plausibly employ a DL-type network combined with (a hierarchical variant of) model-free reinforcement learning, whereas the non-routine system is more plausibly conceived of in terms of a model-based system (cf.Daw et al. 2005).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Daw et al. 2005
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, simulation engines require both a precise predictive theory of the domain and a geometrically and physically precise description of the situation.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More specifically, accounts of behaviour generation and regulation have long distinguished between automatic and deliberative behaviour.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, the contention scheduling/supervisory system theory of Norman and Shallice (1986) proposes that one systemthe contention scheduling systemcontrols routine, overlearned, or automatic behaviour, whereas a second systemthe supervisory systemmay bias or modulate the contention scheduling system in non-routine situations where deliberative control is exercised.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Norman and Shallice (1986)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What is missing from this discussion, however, is the recognition that children's developmental start-up software is shaped by their culture-specific social environment.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the world knowledge used in vision presumably involves a combination of geometric, physical, and other knowledge, rather than just a causal theory of how the image was produced.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither result follows from the model.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Leyla Roskan Çag lar and Stephen José Hanson
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that (1) analogical comparison processes are central to human cognition; and (2) intuitive physical knowledge is captured by qualitative representations, rather than quantitative simulations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AGI has one existence proofour brains.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative representations provide symbolic, relational representations of continuous properties and an account of causality organized around processes of change.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analogy provides a means of transferring prior knowledge.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Even visual tasks, such as character recognition, are more compactly represented by a network of relationships and objects than by an array of pixels, which is why human visual systems compute edges (Marr 1983;Palmer 1999).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marr 1983
- Not checked yetcites Palmer 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We are not saying that an AI could not be created to have genuine interests, but that is down a very long road (Dennett 2017;Hurley et al. 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dennett 2017
- Not checked yetcites Hurley et al. 2011
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“long before that day arrives, if it ever does, we will have AIs that can communicate with natural language with their users (not collaborators).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although some promising current work suggests that genuine human consciousness depends on a fundamental architecture that would require having interests (Deacon 2012;Dennett 2013), long before that day arrives, if it ever does, we will have AIs that can communicate with natural language with their users (not collaborators).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Deacon 2012
- Not checked yetcites Dennett 2013
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because structure mapping allows the use of relational representations, the system also provided explanations, the lack of which is a significant drawback of distributed representations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“spatial lateral connections between oriented features are a predominant feature of the visual cortex and are known to play a role in enforcing contour continuity.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This and many other experiments suggest that analogy not only can explain human transfer learning, but also can provide new techniques for machine learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, qualitative models can explain aspects of social reasoning, including blame assignment (Tomai & Forbus 2008) and moral decision making (Dehghani et al. 2008), suggesting that they are important in intuitive psychology as well.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tomai & Forbus 2008
- Not checked yetcites Dehghani et al. 2008
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also agree that human cognition relies heavily on structured relational representations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even the most powerful of existing AIs are intelligent tools, not colleagues, and whereas they can be epistemically authoritative (within limits we need to characterize carefully), and hence will come to be relied on more and more, they should not be granted moral authority or responsibility because they do not have skin in the game: they do not yet have interests, and simulated interests are not”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we agree that rapid computation over structured representations is a major feature of human cognition.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We humans eventually bootstrap this behavioral competence into reflective comprehension, something more like a theory and something that is probably beyond language-less animals.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is hard to see how a Monte Carlo simulation approach would capture either the semantics of language about processes or the findings of the conceptual change literature.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human emotion is probably the biggest difference between people and AI machines.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, not reaching an important goal can make a person angry.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Emotions modulate human behavior; the how of the behavior is determined by the emotions.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This protocol should be relatively fixed in a given species and lineage, and have the ability to be scaled up over development and evolution.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the brain appears to largely show dynamic routing, sparse connectivity, and feedback among many hierarchical levels.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense, human intelligence controls itself, reprogramming its own programs.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although MCMC has asymptotic guarantees”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Motivation can explain why a certain plan has priority and why it is executed, or why a certain action is stopped.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cortical neurons, like Internet hosts, are separated by relatively short network distances, and have the potential for communication along many possible routes within milliseconds.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We should expect that brains adopt analogousif not homologoussolutions when conditions require.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including such features in computational models may better approximate and explain biological function, which could in turn spawn better AI.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is suggested that an additional”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the number of Internet hostseach of which can potentially communicate with any other within millisecondshas increased without major disruption over a few decades, to surpass the number of neurons in the cortex of many primates including the macaque (Fasolo 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fasolo 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in neural networks, one commonly employs a fixed routing system, all-to-all connectivity between layers, and feedback only between adjacent layers.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Emotions are shortcuts.Emotions are the framework in which cognition happens (e.g., Bach 2009;Dörner 2001).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bach 2009
- Not checked yetcites Dörner 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The function of emotions is to adjust behavior to the demands of the current situation.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although a packet-switched routing protocol would not necessarily improve current deep learning systems, it may be better suited to modeling approaches that more closely approximate cortical networks' structure and function.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These features may make such systems well suited to learning a particular input space, but ill suited to flexible processing and efficient handling of new circumstances.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite lacking theoretical guarantees, MP has been known to work well in many practical cases”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anger means high activation, quick and rough perception, little planning and deliberation, and making a quick choice.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps emotions can partly explain why humans learn”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In brief, a theory or a computational model of human intelligence that focuses solely on cognition is not a real theory of human intelligence.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the same approach could be used with meta-tasks that are extremely common as a result of sociocultural conventions, such as”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fully addressing the challenges Lake et al. poserather than building in compositional knowledge structures that will ultimately prove limitingis a long-term challenge for the science of learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These errors may be an inevitable part of the learning process by which models are updated based on experience.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Measuring the similarity of processing dynamics between a model and a brain has to rely on summary statistics of the activity and may be equally possible for neural and cognitive models.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These deficiencies are pervasive and have real-world consequences.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, one could test whether the visual representation of characters in high-level visual regions reflects the similarity predicted by the generative model of character perception proposed by Lake et al. (2015a).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al. 2015a
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“many continue to believe that immunisation increases the risk of autism and their refusal to immunise has decreased the population's immunity to preventable diseases (Larson et al. 2011;Silverman & Hendrix 2015).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Larson et al. 2011
- Not checked yetcites Silverman & Hendrix 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, humans are biological organisms, and so”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Applying a causal model, especially one based on intuitive understanding, is essentially a gamble.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Humans learn complex skills in a domain after previously learning simpler ones, gradually building structured knowledge as they learn.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As long as major components of human intelligence are out of the reach of machines, we are obviously far from understanding the human brain and cognition.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Avoiding a commitment to symbolic compositionality increases one's flexibility to respond to sometimes subtle influences of context and allows for the possibility of more robust learning across contexts.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One reason humans might be able to learn from fewer games than a neural network trained on playing chess as a single integrated task is that humans receive feedback on many of these tasks throughout learning, and this both allows more feedback from a single experience”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A model must not only reach human levels of task performance, but also predict detailed patterns of behavioral responses (e.g., errors and reaction times on particular instances of a task).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This reflects the fact that current models learn from scratch.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the meta-tasks used in these first attempts only roughly reflect the training environment that humans face (we probably do not face explicit one-shot classification problems that frequently)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A good model should somehow match the brain's dynamics of information processing.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we believe that human knowledge acquisition and generalization can be understood without building in a commitment to domain-specific knowledge structures or compositional knowledge representation.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge of physical relations between objects and psychological relations between agents brings huge advantages.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It provides a wealth of transferable information that allows humans to quickly apprehend a new situation.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their inferences require realistically small amounts of data, but unrealistically large amounts of computation, and, as a result, their highlevel feats of cognition do not always scale to complex real-world challenges.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The brain's inference process appears to involve recurrent cycles of message passing at multiple scales, from local interactions within an area to long-range interactions between higher-and lower-level representations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our models are often incorrect, resistant to correction, and applied inappropriately to new situations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This enables us to infer past causes and future implications, with a focus on what matters to our behavioral success.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This interaction of motivation, cognition, and emotion, is the real strength of human intelligence compared with artificial intelligence.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Thinking like animals or thinking like colleagues?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is clearly not the same as human learning, which builds cumulatively on prior learning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Failures to revise false causal models are far from rare.In fact, they seem to be an inherent part of human reasoning.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewandowsky et al. 2012
- Not checked yetcites Taylor & Ahn 2012
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They can rapidly recognize objects as humans can, and their internal representations are remarkably similar to those of the human ventral stream (Eickenberg et al. 2016;Güçlü & van Gerven 2015;Khaligh-Razavi & Kriegeskorte 2014;Yamins et al. 2014).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eickenberg et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Güçlü & van Gerven 2015
- Not checked yetcites Khaligh-Razavi & Kriegeskorte 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In games like Chess or Go, human learners can receive feedback not only on the outcome of an entire gamedid the learner succeed or fail?but also on individual steps in an action sequence.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“our causal knowledge is almost always incomplete and sometimes completely wrong (Rozenblit & Keil 2002).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rozenblit & Keil 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This sort of richer feedback can easily be incorporated into neural networks, and doing so can enhance learning (Gülçehre and Bengio 2016).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gülçehre and Bengio 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, even two biological brains of the same species will have different numbers of neurons, and any given neuron may be idiosyncratically specialized, and may not have an exact match in the other brain.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedgedn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In cognitive science, the empirical support for models comes from behavioral data.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Appeals to evolution, although they may be plausible for some tasks, seem out of place in domains of recent human invention such as character-based writing systems.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Building on prior knowledge without building it in
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“combining the computational power of deep-neural networks with model-building capacities could indeed bring solutions to some of the world's most pressing problems.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We bring complex knowledge and dynamic models of the world to bear on the sensory data.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We agree with the authors' assertion that “reverse engineering human intelligence can usefully inform artificial intelligence and machine learning” (sect.1.1, para.3)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites sect.1.1, para.3
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cost-benefit-based inferences about situations such as the one depicted in the leftmost picture in Figure 6 of Lake et al. will likely conclude that one agent has a desire to kill the other, and that he or she values higher the state of the other being dead than alive.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been argued that the process of human decision making does not typically involve rational utility maximization (e.g., Hertwig & Herzog 2009).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hertwig & Herzog 2009
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that human-like machines should be designed to make decisions in transparent and comprehensible ways, which can be achieved by accurately mirroring human cognitive processes.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: AI algorithms draw inspiration from human cognitive systems where humans perform better than machines.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although as-if models relying on cost-benefit analysis might be reasonably transparent and comprehensible, for example, when problems are simple and do not involve moral considerations, this might not always be the case.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the discussed example, although both a sheriff and a contract killer would have the same goal to end another person's life, the difference in their identity would change the human interpretation in a significant way.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the authors' proposal of an “intuitive psychology” is grounded in the naïve utility calculus framework (Jara-Ettinger et al. 2016)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jara-Ettinger et al. 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ontological confusions have been linked to people's acceptance of alternative medicine, potentially leading an individual to choose an ineffective treatment over evidence-based treatments, sometimes at extreme personal risk (Lindeman 2011).”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lindeman 2011
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We welcome the applicability of naïve utility calculus for inferring simple information concerning agent-specific variables, such as goals and competence level.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Developers of AI systems should proceed with caution, as these properties of human causal modelling produce pervasive biases, and may be symptomatic of the use of mental models rather than the limitations on human cognition.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Heuristics not only are meant to capture ecologically rational human decision mechanisms (see Todd & Gigerenzer 2007)”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Todd & Gigerenzer 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Lake et al. acknowledge this problem and call for structured cognitive representations, which are required for classifying social situations.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lake et al.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, effective model-based decision-making is associated with capacities for learning and transferring abstract rules (Don et al. 2016), and for cognitive control (Otto et al. 2015), which may potentially be far more powerful in future AI systems.”
§ Building machines that learn and think like people > Nikolaus Kriegeskorte and Robert M. Mok
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Don et al. 2016
- Not checked yetcites Otto et al. 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
People are better than machines at solving a range of difficult computational problems including concept learning, scene understanding, language acquisition, language understanding, and speech recognition.
“Despite recent computational achievements, people are better than machines at solving a range of difficult computational problems, including concept learning, scene understanding, language acquisition, language understanding, speech recognition, and so on.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Children possess the ability and desire to uncover underlying causes of sparsely observed events and use that knowledge to go beyond limited data.
“Children come with the ability and the desire to uncover the underlying causes of sparsely observed events and to use that knowledge to go far beyond the paucity of the data.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People can comprehend a novel scene in a fraction of a second, or a novel utterance in little more than the time it takes to say and hear it.
“People can comprehend a novel scene in a fraction of a second, or a novel utterance in little more than the time it takes to say it and hear it.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Once a causal model of a task is learned, humans can use the model to plan action sequences that maximize future reward.
“Once a causal model of a task has been learned, humans can use the model to plan action sequences that maximize future reward.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Humans combine model-based and model-free learning algorithms both competitively and cooperatively, and these interactions are supervised by metacognitive processes.
“We review evidence that humans combine model-based and model-free learning algorithms both competitively and cooperatively and that these interactions are supervised by metacognitive processes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People can integrate across multiple examples of a character to infer optional elements, such as the cross-bar in '7's, and combine variants into a single coherent representation.
“Furthermore, people can efficiently integrate across multiple examples of a character to infer which have optional elements, such as the horizontal cross-bar in '7's, combining different variants of the same character into a single coherent representation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The core ingredients of human intelligence are not present in most current learning-based AI systems, and not all of them are present together.
“they are key building blocks, which are not present in most current learningbased AI systemscertainly not all present together”
The paper relies on this without support.
The DQN starts completely from scratch, without prior experience.
“The DQN is starting completely from scratch”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The success of the BPL framework in the Characters Challenge can be generalized to understanding human learning as rapid model building.
“The following sections discuss the three main ingredientscompositionality, causality, and learning-to-learnthat were important to the success of this framework and, we believe, are important to understanding human learning as rapid model building more broadly.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Characters Challenge and the Frostbite Challenge are representative testbeds for studying human-like learning and thinking.
“We can see this potential in both of our challenge problems.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Cognitive plausibility offers a surer foundation than biological plausibility for theories of intelligence.
“For now, we believe cognitive plausibility offers a surer foundation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Brain cells are not motile enough to selectively deliver messages to their destinations.
“Given that brain cells themselves are not motile enough to selectively deliver messages to their destination (unlike cells in the immune system, for example)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The brain implements a generative model.
“what kind of generative model the brain implements”
The paper relies on this without support.
The power of neural networks lies in their ability to encode rich featural and contextual information.
“On the other hand, the power of neural networks lies precisely in their ability to encode rich featural and contextual information.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Experience with particular causal relations likely correlates with experience of more superficial features.
“Given that experience with particular causal relations is likely to correlate with experience of more superficial features, a more powerful AI model generator may still suffer similar problems when faced with the difficult decision of which model to apply to a new situation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Current deep learning research does not include physical embodiment.
“and yet it is out of the picture in current deep learning research”
The paper relies on this without support.
Deep learning architectures often concentrate on inference and optimization.
“Deep learning architectures often focus on inference and optimization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Learning happens through complex dynamical interactions among inference, memory, attention, motivation, low-level sensorimotor loops, embodiment, and social interaction.
“learning occurs through complex dynamical interaction among systems of inference, memory, attention, motivation, low-level sensorimotor loops, embodiment, and social interaction”
The paper relies on this without support.
Attention and memory are among the ingredients already present in current deep learning research.
“Although some of these ingredients are part of current DL research, (e.g., attention and memory)”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI algorithms draw inspiration from human cognitive systems where humans perform better than machines.
“Artificial intelligence algorithms seek inspiration from human cognitive systems in areas where humans outperform machines.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A human-like classification of the Figure 6 scene would conclude that it shows either a legal execution or a murder.
“a human-like classification of such a scene would rather reach the conclusion that the scene depicts either a legal execution or a murder”
The paper relies on this without support.
People interacting with the system will probably want a justification for why it chose one interpretation over another.
“Humans interacting with the system will likely expect a justification of why it has picked one interpretation rather than another”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, we know that models trained with self-supervision can capture the underlying structures and relationships behind their training data [51] -exactly what we need from a compression heuristic.”
From Learning to (Learn at Test Time): RNNs with Expressive Hidden States (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Bayesian inference and evidence accumulation, which are cornerstone computations for AI ( 2 ), are basic unconscious mechanisms for humans.”
From What is consciousness, and could machines have it? (2017) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Bayesian approaches to AI ( 2 , 73 ) have recognized the usefulness of learning generative models that can be jointly used for actual perception (present), prospective planning (future), and retrospective analysis (past).”
From What is consciousness, and could machines have it? (2017) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“without possessing any true empathy or social understanding”
From The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents (2025) · cites this paper as [63]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“it remains obviously true that LLMs' inner workings are fundamentally different to human cognition (63), and that they are incapable of feeling or even understanding emotion or language in any genuine sense (27, 64).”
From The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents (2025) · cites this paper as [63]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“there is increasing evidence from cognitive science that human reasoning is scaffolded by rich causal models of the world (Pearl, 1988;Lake et al., 2017), and that humans can intervene on these models to perform rapid and flexible counterfactual simulations (Lagnado et al., 2013;Gerstenberg et al., 2017Gerstenberg et al., , 2021)).”
From Reasoning or Reciting? Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Through Counterfactual Tasks (2024) · cites this paper as Lake et al., 2017
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“In this paper, we begin with the observation that self-supervised learning can compress a massive training set into the weights of a model such as an LLM, which often exhibits deep understanding about the semantic connections among its training data -exactly what we need from a compression heuristic.”
From Learning to (Learn at Test Time): RNNs with Expressive Hidden States (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“It is commonly held that although neural networks can achieve a high level of performance within a narrowly-defined task domain, they cannot robustly generalize what they learn to new problems in the way that human learners do.”
From Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“Cognitive scientists have long hypothesized that variable binding plays a central role in analogical reasoning, and abstract reasoning more broadly, as it potentially allows generalization of abstract roles across different contexts.”
From Emergent analogical reasoning in large language models (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“Initially applied to basic sensory and motor processes23,24, Bayesian models have begun to engage complex cognition, including the way our minds model the physical and social world2.”
From Cognitive computational neuroscience (2018) · cites this paper as [2]
Citations
Cites
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition
Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. (1998) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/5.726791 · Cited by 58,805
ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., Huang, Z., Karpathy, A., Khosla, A., Bernstein, M., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-015-0816-y · Cited by 39,380
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning
Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., Graves, A., Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A. K., Ostrovski, G., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14236 · Cited by 30,357
Deep learning in neural networks: an overview
Schmidhuber, J. (2015) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003 · Cited by 18,570
A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y.-W. (2006) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527 · Cited by 16,336
Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate
Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.0473 · Cited by 16,213
Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks
Zeiler, M. D., & Fergus, R. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_53 · Cited by 15,839
Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature16961 · Cited by 15,612
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- 1961, GPS, A program that simulates human thought
- 1966, Cognitive psychology
- 2012, JMLR Workshop on Unsupervised and Transfer Learning, 27, 195
- 2007, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54
- 1996, Rethinking innateness
- 2003, Artificial intelligence: A modern approach
- 2015, Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 28, 751
- 2014, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 32, 647
- 1986, Machine Learning, 1, 47
- 1986, Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 1
- 1986, Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 1, 216
- 2004, Semantic cognition
- 2015, Communications of the ACM, 58, 92
- 1986, Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 2
- 1995, An invitation to cognitive science: vol. 2. Visual cognition, 297
- Ghahramani, 2014, Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (NIPS 2014)
- 1979, Cognitive Science, 3, 275
- 1950, Mind, 59, 433
- 2007, Nature, 450, 57
- 2010, Origins of human communication
- 1962, IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 8, 155
- 1982, Vision
- 2003, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1141
- 2007, The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature
- 1989, Categorization and naming in children
- 1978, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 17
- 1998, Cognitive Psychology, 282, 243
- Bresnan, 1978, Linguistic theory and psychological reality, 264
- Woodward, 2009, Learning and the infant mind, 66
- 2006, Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science
- 2014, Machine: earning: An artificial intelligence approach, vol. 3
- 2014, PLoS Computational Biology, 10
- 1990, Technometric, 33, 251
- 1975, The psychology of computer vision, 157
- Damon, 1998, Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language development, 523
- 1992, Machine Learning, 8, 279
- 2012, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29, 82
- 2013, Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 365
- 2015, Science, 34, 273
- 2004, Bayesian data analysis
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293
Deep Reinforcement Learning: A Brief Survey
Arulkumaran, K., Deisenroth, M. P., Brundage, M., & Bharath, A. A. (2017) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2017.2743240 · Cited by 4,733
Generalizing from a Few Examples: A Survey on Few-shot Learning
Wang, Y., Yao, Q., Kwok, J. T., & Ni, L. M. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3386252 · Cited by 3,165
Optimization as a Model for Few-Shot Learning
Ravi, S., & Larochelle, H. (2017) · International Conference on Learning Representations · Cited by 2,766
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Metadata
- Authors
- Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-11-24
- Volume
- 40
- Pages
- e253-e253
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- OpenAlex
- W2328078142
- Cited by
- 2,550
- References
- 228
- Citations by year
- 2026: 244 · 2025: 273 · 2024: 305 · 2023: 274 · 2022: 253 · 2021: 358 · 2020: 282 · 2019: 280 · 2018: 168 · 2017: 90 · 2016: 19
- FWCI
- 152.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (ES/K002201/1, RP2012-V-022, 1231216)
- York University
- Leverhulme Trust (RP2012-V022, ES/K002201/1)
- Research Councils UK (EP/K039830/1)
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (146702, 144413)
- Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineração (CCF-1231216)
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K002201/1, RP2012-V-022, K002201, ES/K002201/)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
- Keywords
- human-like learning, artificial intelligence, causal models, explanation and understanding, intuitive theories, compositionality, meta-learning, knowledge generalization, cognitive models, deep neural network
- MeSH terms
- Achievement, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Intelligence, Thinking, Visual Perception, Neural Networks, Computer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review