No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 September 2024
The authors' aim is to build “more biologically plausible learning algorithms” that work in naturalistic environments. Given that, first, human learning and memory are inextricable, and, second, that much human learning is unconscious, can the authors' first research question of how people improve their learning abilities over time be answered without addressing these two issues? I argue that it cannot.
Target article
Meta-learned models of cognition
Related commentaries (22)
Bayes beyond the predictive distribution
Challenges of meta-learning and rational analysis in large worlds
Combining meta-learned models with process models of cognition
Integrative learning in the lens of meta-learned models of cognition: Impacts on animal and human learning outcomes
Is human compositionality meta-learned?
Learning and memory are inextricable
Linking meta-learning to meta-structure
Meta-learned models as tools to test theories of cognitive development
Meta-learned models beyond and beneath the cognitive
Meta-learning and the evolution of cognition
Meta-learning as a bridge between neural networks and symbolic Bayesian models
Meta-learning goes hand-in-hand with metacognition
Meta-learning in active inference
Meta-learning modeling and the role of affective-homeostatic states in human cognition
Meta-learning: Bayesian or quantum?
Probabilistic programming versus meta-learning as models of cognition
Quantum Markov blankets for meta-learned classical inferential paradoxes with suboptimal free energy
Quo vadis, planning?
The added value of affective processes for models of human cognition and learning
The hard problem of meta-learning is what-to-learn
The meta-learning toolkit needs stronger constraints
The reinforcement metalearner as a biologically plausible meta-learning framework
Author response
Meta-learning: Data, architecture, and both