[deleted]
There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
31–40 of 179 posts
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inflection point was 2012, when AlexNet [0], a deep convolutional neural net, achieved a step-change improvement in the ImageNet classification competition. After seeing AlexNet’s results, all of the major ML imaging labs switched to deep CNNs, and other approaches almost completely disappeared from SOTA imaging competitions. Over the next few years, deep neural networks took over in other ML domains as well. The…
> I think most ML people now think of neural-network architectures as being, essentially, choices of tradeoffs that facilitate learning in one context or another when data and compute are in short supply, but not as being fundamental to learning. Is this a practical viewpoint? Can you remove any of the specific architectural tricks used in Transformers and expect them to work about equally well?
I think this question is one of the more concrete and practical ways to attack the problem of understanding transformers. Empirically the current architecture is the best to converge training by gradient descent dynamics. Potentially, a different form might be possible and even beneficial once the core learning task is completed. Also the requirements of iterated and continuous learning might lead to a completely different approach.
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inflection point was 2012, when AlexNet [0], a deep convolutional neural net, achieved a step-change improvement in the ImageNet classification competition. After seeing AlexNet’s results, all of the major ML imaging labs switched to deep CNNs, and other approaches almost completely disappeared from SOTA imaging competitions. Over the next few years, deep neural networks took over in other ML domains as well. The…
> The conventional wisdom is that it was the combination of (1) exponentially more compute than in earlier eras with (2) exponentially larger, high-quality datasets (e.g., the curated and hand-labeled ImageNet set) that finally allowed deep neural networks to shine. I'd thought it was some issue with training where older math didn't play nice with having too many layers.
Sigmoid-type activation functions were popular, probably for the bounded activity and some measure of analogy to biological neuron responses. They work, but get problematic scaling of gradient feedback outside their most dynamic span.
My understanding of the development is that persistent layer-wise pretraining with RBM or autoencoder created an initiation state where the optimization could cope even for more layers, and then when it was proven that it could work, analysis of why led to some changes such as new initiation heuristics, rectified linear activation, eventually normalizations ... so that the pretraining was usually not needed any more.
One finding was that the supervised training with the old arrangement often does work on its own, if you let it run much longer than people reasonably could afford to wait around for just on speculation contrary to observations in CPU computations in the 80s--00s. It has to work its way to a reasonably optimizable state using a chain of poorly scaled gradients first though.
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inflection point was 2012, when AlexNet [0], a deep convolutional neural net, achieved a step-change improvement in the ImageNet classification competition. After seeing AlexNet’s results, all of the major ML imaging labs switched to deep CNNs, and other approaches almost completely disappeared from SOTA imaging competitions. Over the next few years, deep neural networks took over in other ML domains as well. The…
> I think most ML people now think of neural-network architectures as being, essentially, choices of tradeoffs that facilitate learning in one context or another when data and compute are in short supply, but not as being fundamental to learning. Is this a practical viewpoint? Can you remove any of the specific architectural tricks used in Transformers and expect them to work about equally well?
Did you see this one?
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#35I think we need the equivalent of general relativity for latent spaces.
This is the field of information geometry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_geometry
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inflection point was 2012, when AlexNet [0], a deep convolutional neural net, achieved a step-change improvement in the ImageNet classification competition. After seeing AlexNet’s results, all of the major ML imaging labs switched to deep CNNs, and other approaches almost completely disappeared from SOTA imaging competitions. Over the next few years, deep neural networks took over in other ML domains as well. The…
> I think most ML people now think of neural-network architectures as being, essentially, choices of tradeoffs that facilitate learning in one context or another when data and compute are in short supply, but not as being fundamental to learning. Is this a practical viewpoint? Can you remove any of the specific architectural tricks used in Transformers and expect them to work about equally well?
[dead]
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#37Well, "There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning" looks like flag planting - an academic variant of "I told you so!", but one that is a citation magnet.
It's actually really fascinating that there isn't a scientific theory of deep learning, especially as it's a product of human engineering as opposed to e.g. biology or particle physics.
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#38Here's where I'm missing understanding: for decades the idea of neural networks had existed with minimal attention. Then in 2017 Attention Is All You Need gets released and since then there is an exponential explosion in deep learning. I understand that deep learning is accelerated by GPUs but the concept of a transformer could have been used on much slower hardware much earlier.
the concept of a transformer could have been used on much slower hardware much earlier. It could have been done in the early 1970s -- see "Paper tape is all you need" at https://github.com/dbrll/ATTN-11 and the various C-64 projects that have been posted on HN -- but the problem was that Marvin Minsky "proved" that there was no way a perceptron-based network could do anything interesting. Funding dried up in a hurry…
> Marvin Minsky "proved" that there was no way a perceptron-based network could do anything interesting
What result are you referring to?
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#39As someone who works in the area, this provides a decent summary of the most popular research items. The most useful and impressive part is the set of open problems at the end, which just about covers all of the main research directions in the field.
The skepticism I'm seeing in the comments really highlights how little of this work is trickling down to the public, which is very sad to see. While it can offer few mathematical mechanisms to infer optimal network design yet (mostly because just trying stuff empirically is often faster than going through the theory, so it is more common to retroactively infer things), the question "why do neural networks work better than other models?" is getting pretty close to a solid answer. Problem is, that was never the question people seem to have ever really been interested in, so the field now has to figure out what questions we ask next.
Re: There Will Be a Scientific Theory of Deep Learning
#40Here's where I'm missing understanding: for decades the idea of neural networks had existed with minimal attention. Then in 2017 Attention Is All You Need gets released and since then there is an exponential explosion in deep learning. I understand that deep learning is accelerated by GPUs but the concept of a transformer could have been used on much slower hardware much earlier.
The inflection point was 2012, when AlexNet [0], a deep convolutional neural net, achieved a step-change improvement in the ImageNet classification competition. After seeing AlexNet’s results, all of the major ML imaging labs switched to deep CNNs, and other approaches almost completely disappeared from SOTA imaging competitions. Over the next few years, deep neural networks took over in other ML domains as well. The…
> but I think most ML people now think of neural-network architectures as being, essentially, choices of tradeoffs that facilitate learning in one context or another when data and compute are in short supply, but not as being fundamental to learning.
I feel like you are downplaying the importance of architecture. I never read the bitter lesson, but I have always heard more as a comment on embedding knowledge into models instead of making them to just scale with data. We know algorithmic improvement is very important to scale NNs (see https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Measuring-the-Algorith...). You can't scale an architecture that has catastrophic forgetting embedded in it. It is not really a matter of tradeoffs, some are really worse in all aspects. What I agree is just that architectures that scale better with data and compute do better. And sure, you can say that smaller architectures are better for smaller problems, but then the framing with the bitter lesson makes less sense.