Live data from Hacker News

Theoretical Motivations for Deep Learning

rinuboney.github.io

11–13 of 13 posts

Re: Theoretical Motivations for Deep Learning

#11
post #7

1) I am curious about learning more about the statement: "Deep learning is a branch of machine learning algorithms based on learning multiple levels of representation. The multiple levels of representation corresponds to multiple levels of abstraction. " What evidence exists that the 'multiple levels of representation', which I understand to generally be multiple hidden layers of a neural network, actually correspond…

The whole presentation seems very hand-wavy, which I think is pretty much the level most motivational discussions of deep learning are at. I think the presentations by Yann Lecun and Leon Bottou are more interesting - and tend to involve more uncertainty and fewer pronouncements. see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9878047

This was fascinating and greatly informative. As you said, the authors were not afraid to show the real warts and bleeding edge, as a good scientist should. Thanks for the link.

Re: Theoretical Motivations for Deep Learning

#12
post #6

I wonder if "lots of data" is wrong. If I show you say twenty similar-looking Chinese characters in one person's handwriting, and the same twenty in another person's handwriting, you'll probably do a good job (though maybe not an easy time) classifying them with very little data.

Because I've seen lots of other handwriting, even if in another language. I have very strong priors.

The problem is that a computer comes in without knowing anything about tangential phenomenon. So it needs lots of data to catch up to me and my years of forming associative connections about other handwriting I've seen.

If I showed you alien (ie not human) handwritten samples, you'd probably stuggle too.

Re: Theoretical Motivations for Deep Learning

#13
post #6

I wonder if "lots of data" is wrong. If I show you say twenty similar-looking Chinese characters in one person's handwriting, and the same twenty in another person's handwriting, you'll probably do a good job (though maybe not an easy time) classifying them with very little data.

A baby who's never seen an image before wouldn't be able to do that. It wouldn't even know what writing is.
Post reply on HN