<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Neural GPUs Learn Algorithms · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1511.08228/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1511.08228/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Neural GPUs Learn Algorithms — mentioned by IsONoDOn</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18109174</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1511.08228:18109174</guid><pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2018 00:06:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I thought it’s a given that since both CNNs and CAs are Turing complete, you can use one to simulate the other. They are both Turing complete, yes, but the similarities are deeper. Recurrent CNNs are a very natural way to describe CAs because they both impose exactly the same prior: that the system&amp;#x27;s underlying laws are spatially quantized, local, and translationally invariant. There hasn&amp;#x27;t been much work done in this area. People have made the connection before (e.g. this paper from Sutskever: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.08228.pdf) but AFAIK this is the first work to actually look deeply…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1511.08228/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
