Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many ways to compress networks - by pruning neurons, by enforcing sparsity, by representing activations and gradients on one bit (or a few bits), and by transfer learning where a large net is transferred into a smaller one.
Yes, my question was more about meta-level algorithms for balancing size against performance. Especially adaptive methods such that we're not just growing up to a limit and stopping, but selectively allocating resources to those parts which need them. Adapting over time would be nice too: "thinking harder" when there are idle resources, but shrinking the results back down under load.
Neurogenesis Deep Learning
101–105 of 105 posts
Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning
#102Neurogensis? How about neural death as a way to prune large neural networks into more compact ones--now that is a research idea!
For that, check out our OpenReview ICLR submission on NEUROGENESIS-INSPIRED DICTIONARY LEARNING: ONLINE MODEL ADAPTION IN A CHANGING WORLD, by Sahil Garg, Irina Rish, Guillermo Cecchi, Aurelie Lozano https://openreview.net/revisions?id=HyecJGP5ge
Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning
#103https://openreview.net/revisions?id=HyecJGP5ge
NEUROGENESIS-INSPIRED DICTIONARY LEARNING: ONLINE MODEL ADAPTION IN A CHANGING WORLD Sahil Garg, Irina Rish, Guillermo Cecchi, Aurelie Lozano
Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning
#104Re: Neurogenesis Deep Learning
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll say... 5 - 7 years. This is all based on pure speculation, and being a little more than a ML hobbiest. One thing is for sure though - when we do reach that point, everything changes forever.
I'm immensely confused as to how such a number can be put on a discovery. Then again.. I also don't understand how researchers come up with a yearly budget for making discoveries.