But, loosely speaking, it is a classifier that works best with less information, utilising a series of formulas. It only really does bitwise ops for recognition, and is easy to implement and fast.
If I were to describe it in more flowery terms, hashing and finite automata had a baby.
As far as I can read it a function that takes an input (a vector of real numbers in 0..1 (?)), a state (in form of an integer) and produces an output (in form of something?).
Here's an example of someone explaining something to five different levels of audiences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWJCfOvochA
None of these approaches are prima facie "unreasonable." But if you get the wrong level it won't feel useful.
I don't think it's crazy to have open teaching discussions on HN, I think you lay out a fair hope that someone can break something down here. But I'm just not sure which level you're looking for.
Precision and simplicity are often competing constraints.
Let me try getting my point across with an insult instead.
Some dude in a marginal university in Norway has managed to convince a few people, a couple of students and a writer for a glittery university magazine, that he is a genius.
His approach is to do something trivial but bury it in a completely obscure terminology. This technically sorta works on a toy example but not really on more challenging tests. But it is very convincing for people who are not trying to understand what is going on but rather are impressed by technical words and academic rank.
That is why it is getting negative feedback here and on other technical forums.
And that is why noone can answer a simple technical question.
As a rule of thumb, when you write such a sentence, just stop and go outside for a while.
https://github.com/cair/TsetlinMachine
>And that is why noone can answer a simple technical question.
Who is "noone"? Some people in a small thread on HN that first read about this today and most of which do not have anything to do with NN or Tsetlin's automata (e.g. startup founders, JS programmers, embedded programmers, and so on)?
Note also that you haven't made any "simple technical question" -- not a specific one that is. Just asked for it to be explained to you, and then rudely complained again when someone did that it wasn't "reasonably" explained.
You also seem impatient to wait for one (considering that you posted 4 hours ago, and most of US is sleeping still), it has to be pronto for you it seems...
Here's also a simple explanation from another member:
"The Tsetlin machine is based on Tsetlin’s automata, the so called finite automata with linear tactics. The are basically counters of rewards (up) and penalties (down) with various strategies of integration, proportionization and differentiation. They have minimum necessary for digital emulation of the perception functionality. They str not only due to Tsetlin but also yo Krinsky, Krylov, Varshavsky. Mikhail Tsetlin is the most prominent creator. It’s the work in the USSR in the 60s. So not new but very elegant!"
>His approach is to do something trivial but bury it in a completely obscure terminology. This technically sorta works on a toy example but not really on more challenging tests. But it is very convincing for people who are not trying to understand what is going on but rather are impressed by technical words and academic rank. That is why it is getting negative feedback here and on other technical forums.
Possibly. Also possible that all the negative feedback are from people who don't understand the math either, and/or are too invested in traditional NN, and is the usual resistance to new ideas.
Apparently you don't have the means to classify it to one or the other case, but you do want to be rude and make a judgement nonetheless.
Your problem is your own inability or unwillingness to set aside a few moments to read the - in my opinion reasonably clear - definitions in the linked articles. Don't take it out on others.
You are not entitled to an easily grokkable explanation, tailor made for your exact level of knowledge.
It's in the paper. You don't have to read the whole thing, it's pretty early on.