Live data from Hacker News

Machine Learning Crash Course

developers.google.com

121–130 of 233 posts

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#121
post #53

I want to ask people who know ML well if the hype is warranted? Billions of courses, web sites, job applications and HN posts. The subject seem to have taken off massively in the last two years. I mean image and speech recognition is pretty cool (when it works!), but hardly that earth shattering, is it?

Deep nets are deservedly big because they've managed to improve upon all of the decades-old state-of-the-art methods in the world of signal processing (DSP): voice, image, video, game play, and a much of natural language. No other single computational/algorithmic method has achieved so much, in so many domains, ever. That's revolutionary.

The advances made by deep nets in signal processing will likely slow down now, but they aren't going away, not in the foreseeable future.

The hype around DNNs arose when we took our unbridled enthusiasm for what's they've achieved in DSP and extend it to other domains with data that's less 'dense' and thus aren't as amenable to de/convolution in N-D space or time.

Will DNNs revolutionize or introduce all the techniques needed to achieve AGI/Strong AI? I very much doubt it. As yet, there's little sign that DNNs can perform relational operations on interdependent symbols, like the transforms available via type theory, bayesian nets, or predicate logic.

The multitude of disparate facts and semantics in a rich knowledgebase can't be organized into dense matrices the way that continuous signals can, so the SIMD operations that are so effective in DSP won't implement the rich transformations needed in a relational fact-based knowledge space equally as well, if at all. Thus DNNs almost surely aren't going to take us to the heights of logical or compositional thinking that human level intelligence requires.

But how far up relational mountain will DNNs take us? I suspect that won't be known for a decade or longer. But even if we don't reach the summit, it'll be higher than we were before.

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#122
post #53

I want to ask people who know ML well if the hype is warranted? Billions of courses, web sites, job applications and HN posts. The subject seem to have taken off massively in the last two years. I mean image and speech recognition is pretty cool (when it works!), but hardly that earth shattering, is it?

Deep nets are deservedly big because they've managed to improve upon most of the decades-old state-of-the-art methods in the world of signal processing (DSP): voice, image, video, game play, and a significant amount of natural language. No other single computational/algorithmic method has achieved so much in so many domains, ever. That's revolutionary.

The rate of advance using deep nets in signal processing will likely slow down now, but they aren't going away, not in the foreseeable future.

The hype around DNNs arose when we took our unbridled enthusiasm for what's they've achieved in DSP and extended it to other domains where data is less 'dense' and thus aren't as amenable to fast de/convolution in N-D space or time.

Will DNNs revolutionize or introduce all the techniques needed to achieve AGI/Strong AI? I very much doubt it. As yet, there's little sign that DNNs can perform relational operations on interdependent symbols, like the transforms available via type theory, bayesian nets, or predicate logic.

The multitude of disparate facts and semantics in a rich knowledgebase can't be organized into dense matrices the way that continuous signals can, so the SIMD operations that are so effective in DSP won't implement the rich transformations needed in a relational fact-based knowledge space equally as well, if at all. Thus DNNs almost surely aren't going to take us to the heights of logical or compositional thinking that human level intelligence requires.

But how far up relational mountain will DNNs take us? I suspect that won't be known for a decade or longer. But even if we don't reach the summit, we'll be considerably closer than we were before.

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#123
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The obsolete gatekeeping by the AI/ML elites who say "you can't use AI/ML unless you have a PhD/5 years research experience" is one of the things I really hate about the industry. It is absolutely true that you do not need a graduate degree to apply AI/ML to vanilla problems. It is also absolutely true, in my experience, that you need a graduate-level education or years of hands-on experience to troubleshoot cases…

I can't help but think in 3-5 years how quaint our tools of the day will seem.

I think about this constantly.

Not to sound like I walked uphill in both directions back in my day or something, but I remember building models in numpy without pandas. It was tedious -- and that's just a nice API wrapping ndarrays!

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#124

Looking through the topics covered, the standard AI-course caveats ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247629 ) apply. Yes, AI/ML MOOCs teach the corresponding tools well, and the creation of new tools like Keras make the field much more accessible. The obsolete gatekeeping by the AI/ML elites who say "you can't use AI/ML unless you have a PhD/5 years research experience" is one of the things I really hate about…

Gate keeping is only obsolete when it ceases to have impact. The reality right now is that ML is extremely hard to enter even for a very knowledgeable and deeply experienced but non-credentialed (by degree) person. It will be interesting to see how the situation evolves but my own observations are that people trying to enter the space might be better off getting a quickie masters if they can afford the time or cost t…

[deleted]

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#125
post #77

This looks like a well put-together course, and a good way to learn TensorFlow. Keras and TensorFlow are top of my list of technologies to explore in the very near future. Is anyone here doing Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course [1]? I'm about half-way through and really enjoying it. I'm particularly appreciating that the programming exercises are done in MatLab/Octave, so I feel that I'm really understanding the fun…

I teach ML and am currently writing my 2nd book on it. I always advocate learning the fundamentals. Machine learning is math, and neural networks in particular rely on linear algebra and vector calculus. (You can build a NN without using linear algebra directly, likely it'll be slower and besides, the concept still relies on linear algebra). Frameworks abstract away a lot of the mathiness, which is a net good for soc…

Thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply - much appreciated. "ML is maths" is something that I'm getting used to now. I do have some real uses in mind for what I'm learning' both in my job and some side projects, particularly image feature recognition, and I'm looking forward so seeing how it all works in out. Thanks again!

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you work for a company obviously known for their ML the "expertise" out there right now is brutal. People are building recommendation engines without knowing the very, very, very basics like Jaccard indexes, ROC Curves, or topic drift. I've even had to explain type two error to someone working on one of these before. I agree with your general thrust, and you're right, messy data is often 95% of the problem, bu…

I took a machine learning graduate-level course from Andrew Ng himself, and I don't recall learning about Jaccard indexes or topic drift. Maybe your sense of what counts as "very, very, very basic" is skewed toward your own experience. There's a phenomenon known to psychologists where people tend to think that the stuff that they know is very easy and basic, so they conclude that anybody who doesn't know what they kn…

[deleted]

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#127

As someone who is trying to learn ML, all the courses available are hugely helpful. One thing I wish I had easy access to is the process that someone goes through while trying to build a model on a real dataset. Specifically following questions are the ones I struggle with: 1. How did you figure out what features would be useful? 2. How did you figure out what algorithm(s) are appropriate? 3. how and why did you mass…

Georgia Tech has an graduate course on Machine Learning CS-7641. There are four major projects in that course where the students must analyze (and re-analyze) a chosen dataset. Here is an example of the code one student used: https://github.com/JonathanTay/CS-7641-assignment-1 Unfortunately all the plotting code was intentionally removed. Sometimes the project reports make it online (http://www.dudonwai.com/docs/gt-omscs-cs7641-a3.pdf?pdf=gt-o...) . Having spent several months of my life on the assignments I'd say that only way to learn it is to try a whole bunch of different things and try and figure out why some work and why some don't. Sometimes you learn from the failures, sometimes from the unexpected successes.

Re: Machine Learning Crash Course

#128
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Type I" and "Type II" errors are some of the stupidest and most obfuscatory academic terminology ever invented, and (as an academic) I absolutely refuse to make the effort to learn which way round they go. Just call the bloody things what they are: false positives and false negatives. (Getting seriously OT now, but Kahneman does something annoyingly similar with his talk of "System 1" and "System 2" in Thinking Fast…

What are some synonyms to Kahneman's System 1 and System 2 then? Because Type 1 and 2 errors seem to be completely equivalent to false and positive negatives. I think Kahneman motivates his decision to introduce the terms System 1 and 2 quite well in his book, and I don't know of any direct counterparts.

Jonathan Haidt proposed a similar system in his book "The Happiness Hypothesis". He called it the automatic and controlled sides. The automatic side/system 1 is also what's being described in the book "The Inner Game of Tennis". I would summarize the two sides as the reflexive and the deliberate sides.
Post reply on HN