I feel like there's about 1000 hours of high quality AI lectures available for free on the internet and while I do believe in a certain amount of selflessness in education, I am skeptical that any of that is providing more than a glimpse of what you need to know to be productive at it. In other words, there's a thousand hours of material out there, which probably takes 10000 hours to actually get into so you might as…
MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
21–30 of 36 posts
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#22I feel like there's about 1000 hours of high quality AI lectures available for free on the internet and while I do believe in a certain amount of selflessness in education, I am skeptical that any of that is providing more than a glimpse of what you need to know to be productive at it. In other words, there's a thousand hours of material out there, which probably takes 10000 hours to actually get into so you might as…
ML is a very applied subject. There is entirely too little theory people need to know. In fact the most impressive vision/nlp architectures are indeed uninterpretable alchemy. It would make very little difference to study it at a university. Unless of course you 're going for probability theory.
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#23The gap that I see in current machine learning is that everyone is learning how to use the popular models, but no one knows how to construct a new model that solves a new problem. So everyone can download word vectors and use them for what they're good at, but the second you get off the beaten track, almost all machine learning practitioners fall flat. I really dont think this is due to how new the field is, rather t…
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#24Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#25The gap that I see in current machine learning is that everyone is learning how to use the popular models, but no one knows how to construct a new model that solves a new problem. So everyone can download word vectors and use them for what they're good at, but the second you get off the beaten track, almost all machine learning practitioners fall flat. I really dont think this is due to how new the field is, rather t…
As far as I know, a lot (most?) advances in the field are just trying new ideas that happen to work. Is this correct?
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#26The gap that I see in current machine learning is that everyone is learning how to use the popular models, but no one knows how to construct a new model that solves a new problem. So everyone can download word vectors and use them for what they're good at, but the second you get off the beaten track, almost all machine learning practitioners fall flat. I really dont think this is due to how new the field is, rather t…
What mathematical maturity went into designing the most popular models? What mathematical maturity lead to using ReLU instead of tanh for activation functions, for example? As far as I know, a lot (most?) advances in the field are just trying new ideas that happen to work. Is this correct?
EDIT:
copying and pasting this from another answer:
I think its way different than that, those would just be precursors, and in cases like real analysis, superfluous. Instead it would look something like, I have a Universal Sentence Encoder architecture, but its not performing well on my data, aside from tweaking the training set, how can I take this architecture and change it to work better with my individual problem? The number of people on the planet that can do this successfully, without wasting months of time messing around with tensorflow is extremely small. But this is where the value is. These massive catch all models only work for the people creating them, just jamming them into any NLP model will always produce sub par and probably unusable results
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#27The gap that I see in current machine learning is that everyone is learning how to use the popular models, but no one knows how to construct a new model that solves a new problem. So everyone can download word vectors and use them for what they're good at, but the second you get off the beaten track, almost all machine learning practitioners fall flat. I really dont think this is due to how new the field is, rather t…
wouldn’t this just require a few textbooks in linear/non-linear optimization, mathematical modeling, and real analysis?
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#28The gap that I see in current machine learning is that everyone is learning how to use the popular models, but no one knows how to construct a new model that solves a new problem. So everyone can download word vectors and use them for what they're good at, but the second you get off the beaten track, almost all machine learning practitioners fall flat. I really dont think this is due to how new the field is, rather t…
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
wouldn’t this just require a few textbooks in linear/non-linear optimization, mathematical modeling, and real analysis?
I think its way different than that, those would just be precursors, and in cases like real analysis, superfluous. Instead it would look something like, I have a Universal Sentence Encoder architecture, but its not performing well on my data, aside from tweaking the training set, how can I take this architecture and change it to work better with my individual problem? Assume here that the problem one is trying to sol…
I think humans can still invent new macro structures like CNN's...but humans are inherently shit at analyzing "what if we removed one neuron in the 2nd hidden layer?". The subtle tweaking is really best left to an automated recursion process.
Humans are better at seeing/inventing macro structures - such as adapting the unidirectional GPT to a bidirectional ELMO/BERT. After the invention, humans are generally pretty good at determining "whether" a network can be used to solve a particular task, although not infallible [1: Can BERT generate sentences from a prompt like GPT?]
But computers are once again often better at quickly determining whether which (ELMO, BERT, or GPT) perform better on a particular task for which they are all at least feasibly suited.
0: http://ai.googleblog.com/2019/08/efficientnet-edgetpu-creati...
1: https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/9141/can-bert-be-used...
Re: MIT lecture series on deep learning in January 2020
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
ML is a very applied subject. There is entirely too little theory people need to know. In fact the most impressive vision/nlp architectures are indeed uninterpretable alchemy. It would make very little difference to study it at a university. Unless of course you 're going for probability theory.
Are you defining "need to know" as in the state of the art methods of today? Problem is the next stage after mature technology is commodity. We'll be getting daily spam from India offering to fulfill all our "A.I. design" needs just as with web design. If all you have to do is follow a blog post or video on how to use a prepackaged framework to get a job done, than everyone else can do it too.