zlacker

> Instead of trying to bring down another technology (neural networks), how about you focus on making symbolic methods usable to solve real-world problems; e.g. how can I build a robust email spam detection system with symbolic methods?

I have two concerns. First, just after pointing out a logical fallacy from someone else, you added a fallacy: the either-or fallacy. (One can criticize a technology and do other things too.)

Second, you selected an example that illustrates a known and predictable weakness of symbolic systems. Still, there are plenty of real-world problems that symbolic systems address well. So your comment cherry-picks.

It appears as if you are trying to land a counter punch here. I'm weary of this kind of conversational pattern. Many of us know that tends to escalate. I don't want HN to go that direction. We all have varying experience and points of view to contribute. Let's try to be charitable, clear, and logical.

>>xpe+(OP)
I am desperately vetting your comment for something I can criticize. An inadvertent, irrelevant, imagined infraction. Anything! But you have left me no opening.

Well done, sir, well done.

>>Neverm+w2
Thanks, but if I didn't blunder here, I can assure you I have in many other places. I strive to be mindful. I try not to "blame" anyone for strong reactions. But when we see certain unhelpful behaviors directed at other people, I try to identify/name it without making it worse. Awareness helps.

>>xpe+A3
Without awareness we are just untagged data in a sea of uncompressed noise.