Mathematically it appears to be just another neural network. IMHO, deep learning is probably more likely to give systems approximating general intelligence.
Whereas best I understand it, HTM is online and updates the weights every time step without needing to keep a running memory of the states it's been in.
What's the difference, broadly speaking?
> IMHO, deep learning is probably more likely to give systems approximating general intelligence.
If HTMs are just another neural net, why do you suspect deep learning will excel comparatively?
I don't know the first thing about HTMs - just curious.
Hawkins argues that HTMs capture the systems-level effect of a brain, even if software models of neurons are not the same as biological neurons.
I can't personally comment on what others say about the accuracy, even at the systems-level.
Re: "The most exciting aspect of Numenta's research is that they are building algorithms which think the way we do (albeit in early stages right now)." It is a stretch to use the word "think" in this way, since thinking suggests consciousness. One wouldn't say we "think" when we simply observe. You might argue that HTMs pass signals in an analogous way -- that might be a fair statement, from Hawkins' point of view.
Yes, I realize that Hawkins says some interesting things about 'forward' and 'backward' processing even for 'low-level' processing such as edge detection.
Said book spends a good deal of time on criticizing neural networks, FYI.