Talk:Catastrophic interference
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catastrophic interference article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Activation overlap (Node Sharpening Technique section) edit
For example, if the activations at the hidden layer from one input are (0.3, 0.1, 0.9, 1.0) and the activations from the next input are (0.0, 0.9, 0.1, 0.9) the activation overlap would be (0.3 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.9 )/ 4 = 0.35.
Shouldn't that be (0.0 + 0.1 + 0.1 + 0.9 )/ 4, or is the 0.0 in the "next input" special cased? If so, perhaps some discussion of why would be warranted, as it's not immediately apparent to me why it would be. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Neutral point of view violated? edit
The article explains neural networks as "network approach and connectionist approach to cognitive science". Neural networks are much more than that. This and the subsequent text feels like editorial bias and not an objective, Wikipedia-like overview of the subject.ThisFeelsABitOff (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ThisFeelsABitOff: Neural networks are among the topics that are studied in cognitive science. In what way is the article biased? Jarble (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Did GPT 3.5 (Assistant, ChatGPT) solved the problem? edit
It appears they slightly retrain it on user input. 2A00:1370:8184:9B6:8AA3:B0D:7D41:F644 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)