Live data from Hacker News

Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

oreillynet.com

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#61
post #8

Well, it is definitely something but it being the "Breakthrough of the Decade" seems pretty unlikely to me (given my available evidence). I do not know well other examples beyond case of Automatic Speech Recognition, but since this case caused a lot of noise, I bet it is responsible for a reasonable chunk of the Deep learning "buzz". Here is my take about this. If you look at papers from Microsoft like Seide et al 20…

The thing that NNs have in their favor that other "20 year old techniques" lack is their ability to model any mathematical equation. There is no fundamental limit to the complexity of systems NNs can model (as there is with other AI techniques). The problem with NNs is the difficulty of training them. Back propagation with random initial weights is simple, but it can easily converge on suboptimal local maximum if the…

>The thing that NNs have in their favor that other "20 year old techniques" lack is their ability to model any mathematical equation. There is no fundamental limit to the complexity of systems NNs can model (as there is with other AI techniques).

I'm sure that a decision tree can also be viewed as a [universal approximator](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theorem) if you let tree height go to infinity (just as you need to let layer size grow unbounded with a NN). In practice, this power is at best irrelevant and often actually a liability (you have to control model complexity to prevent overfitting/memorization).

And, importantly, being able to theoretically encode any function within your model is not the same as having a robust learning algorithm that will actually infer those particular weights from a sample of input/output data.

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#62
post #57
post #29

I am sorry, but does anyone else have the impression that a lot of people is commenting here with so much confidence while clearly not knowing anything about the topic? It takes almost an equivalent of an undergraduate mathematics degree and than a lot of experience in ML itself to get a decent understanding how things like Deep Belief Networks work, so I don't wonder none of the comments so far hinted at any underst…

>not used in industry Well, that ones about me. Yes, I have a plenty of experience in machine learning, including undergraduate research in neural networks, a graduate degree in machine learning, and more than five years of industry experience (including several years building some of the most utilized neural network models in industry). I have read many of the deep network papers in detail, and have played around wi…

What kind of insight into whether deep networks are interesting or not does the fact that they are (supposedly) not used in the industry bring to the table? To me, insight would be something like "they do not generalize well unless you have really a lot of data" or anything concretely related to the research done on them.

By the way, I am not asking anyone what their degree is, I am just asking to bring arguments and experiences or stay neutral.

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#63
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not playing the credentials game, quite the contrary, I remember trying to understand DBFs while at the university and failing miserably due to the complexity of the subject. I am also not defending deep learning in any way or having any stance about the subject myself. I just think in a place like HN you should not criticize technology without having practical experience or technical arguments, and of course "n…

1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation. 3. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being successful in the industry. I have long switched over to DuckDuckGo for technical queries. Anyways, what AI people should first address always is point number 2. AI has always…

1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid.

That's exactly what I am complaining about.

2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation.

I never said that, it just narrows the amount of people that can comment on it with merit.

3. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being successful in the industry.

It was just a side-comment.

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#64
post #7
post #6

Can this be viewed without registering?

I don't think so. I even had to register to view - and it's my talk! I haven't received any marketing stuff from Cloudera or O'Reilly however. Honestly, I doubt those companies would do anything questionable with registrations.

I wish there was a download option

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#65
Deep learning is so attractive to any AI and machine learning practitioner! The results are beautiful to witness or read about. This is clearly another step in a direction that many of us have been waiting (or working on) for a long time!

That said, AI, like every other sciences, experiences trends and bubbles. If you give a decent look to usages and problem solving with machine learning, deep learning techniques are not exactly the final answer. Typically, they're slow to train, to my knowledge there is no good 'online' algorithm yet to train them (i.e. for autoencoders, recursive autoencoders, Boltzman machines). Many applications, and a trend toward 'lifelong learning'[1], require fast incremental learning that yields results in near real-time, or at least in minutes rather than days.

I've compared a couple of unsupervised machine learning algorithms with recursive autoencoders: the latter can learn deeper, very often, but at a computational costs (days vs seconds). Deep learning computation will improve, for sure though.

[1] http://cs.brynmawr.edu/~eeaton/AAAI-SSS13-LML/

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#66
post #29

I am sorry, but does anyone else have the impression that a lot of people is commenting here with so much confidence while clearly not knowing anything about the topic? It takes almost an equivalent of an undergraduate mathematics degree and than a lot of experience in ML itself to get a decent understanding how things like Deep Belief Networks work, so I don't wonder none of the comments so far hinted at any underst…

I haven't commented although my field of study is ML, but I have to say this is one of the shallowest infomercials I've seen hitting the front page here at HN.

They say absolutely nothing of relevance other than how awesome it's supposed to be, and oh by the way this is Cloudera and it's great, and I happen to work in Kaggle and it's magnificient. After preying your personal data to let you listen to the infomercials.

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#68
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not playing the credentials game, quite the contrary, I remember trying to understand DBFs while at the university and failing miserably due to the complexity of the subject. I am also not defending deep learning in any way or having any stance about the subject myself. I just think in a place like HN you should not criticize technology without having practical experience or technical arguments, and of course "n…

1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation. 3. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being successful in the industry. I have long switched over to DuckDuckGo for technical queries. Anyways, what AI people should first address always is point number 2. AI has always…

Nobody has ever convinced me humans are intelligent. Every specific example of human intelligence put forward, it eventually ends up that machines do it better.

How is one to scientifically validate against something that can't even be defined?

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#69
post #59
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>DNNs can be thought of a stacked Restricted Boltzmann Machines Agree, as explained in Hinton et al 2006. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hinton/absps/ncfast.pdf But this is just for pre-training, as I said. If you look at Seides paper, they pre-train treating the MLP as a DBN and then they train it as a classic MLP with BP. Also using layer-wise BP pre-training does bring performance close to DBN pre-training, with no us…

There's also the random knockout of neurons, as mentioned in the webinar.

I did not find that on the paper, are you referring to randomly switching off neurons?. I would be surprised if this would not be a technique of the original neural networks wave.

Re: Deep Learning - The Biggest Data Science Breakthrough of the Decade

#70
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being scientifically valid. 2. Model X for intelligence being highly technical or cool in some mathematical way is not scientific validation. 3. Google hiring X is not the same as X's model being successful in the industry. I have long switched over to DuckDuckGo for technical queries. Anyways, what AI people should first address always is point number 2. AI has always…

Nobody has ever convinced me humans are intelligent. Every specific example of human intelligence put forward, it eventually ends up that machines do it better. How is one to scientifically validate against something that can't even be defined?

>Nobody has ever convinced me humans are intelligent. Every specific example of human intelligence put forward, it eventually ends up that machines do it better.

First of all that is completely wrong even for simple things like image recognition (try building a face recognizer which works under all possible conditions).

But more starkly consider the following question:

Is Geoff Hinton a machine?

Post reply on HN