Live data from Hacker News

“Deep Learning has outlived its usefulness as a buzz-phrase”

facebook.com

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: “Deep Learning has outlived its usefulness as a buzz-phrase”

#11

"See more of Yann LeCun on Facebook" popup, no access to the page. No, I don't want to create a Facebook account to read a blog post. Perhaps links to walled-garden pages where you need an account and need to be logged in should be prohibited or at least discouraged.

You need to up your crap-blocking game. This bookmarklet can help:

    javascript:(function() {
        (function () {
            var i, elements = document.querySelectorAll('body *');
            for (i = 0; i 

Re: “Deep Learning has outlived its usefulness as a buzz-phrase”

#16
post #9
post #5

1. Differentiable Programming is horrible branding. It's hard to say, not catchy, and not as easily decipherable. 2. Isn't the evolution of Deep Networks more advance setups such as GANs, RNNs, and so on?

I like it, at least from the little that I read about it. The name describes the core of what it is: differentiate programs, in order to figure out how changes the the program affect the output and using that for optimization purposes. Do we really need to invent obscure, new names for everything just so that it sounds catchy?

Couldn't agree more. A technique should be judged by its usefulness. Not by its catchiness.

Re: “Deep Learning has outlived its usefulness as a buzz-phrase”

#18

"See more of Yann LeCun on Facebook" popup, no access to the page. No, I don't want to create a Facebook account to read a blog post. Perhaps links to walled-garden pages where you need an account and need to be logged in should be prohibited or at least discouraged.

I opened it in an Incognito window and it worked fine. Public posts on FB can be seen without logging in.

Re: “Deep Learning has outlived its usefulness as a buzz-phrase”

#19
I believe this paper by Marcus ( https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.00631.pdf ) earlier this week inspired this.

Edit: I don't mean Marcus inspired the term differentiable programming; he inspired LeCun to emphasize the wider scope of deep learning after Marcus attacked it. In fact, LeCun liked a post on twitter rebutting Marcus' paper that also talks about differentiable programming: https://twitter.com/tdietterich/status/948811917593780225

Re: “Deep Learning has outlived its usefulness as a buzz-phrase”

#20
post #5

1. Differentiable Programming is horrible branding. It's hard to say, not catchy, and not as easily decipherable. 2. Isn't the evolution of Deep Networks more advance setups such as GANs, RNNs, and so on?

> Differentiable Programming is horrible branding. It's hard to say, not catchy, and not as easily decipherable

Tell that to the people who deliberately popularized the term Dynamic Programming for something that was neither dynamic nor programming.

____

(From Wiki)

Bellman explains the reasoning behind the term dynamic programming in his autobiography, Eye of the Hurricane: An Autobiography (1984, page 159). He explains:

"I spent the Fall quarter (of 1950) at RAND. My first task was to find a name for multistage decision processes. An interesting question is, Where did the name, dynamic programming, come from? The 1950s were not good years for mathematical research. We had a very interesting gentleman in Washington named Wilson. He was Secretary of Defense, and he actually had a pathological fear and hatred of the word research. I’m not using the term lightly; I’m using it precisely. His face would suffuse, he would turn red, and he would get violent if people used the term research in his presence. You can imagine how he felt, then, about the term mathematical. The RAND Corporation was employed by the Air Force, and the Air Force had Wilson as its boss, essentially. Hence, I felt I had to do something to shield Wilson and the Air Force from the fact that I was really doing mathematics inside the RAND Corporation. What title, what name, could I choose? In the first place I was interested in planning, in decision making, in thinking. But planning, is not a good word for various reasons. I decided therefore to use the word “programming”. I wanted to get across the idea that this was dynamic, this was multistage, this was time-varying. I thought, let's kill two birds with one stone. Let's take a word that has an absolutely precise meaning, namely dynamic, in the classical physical sense. It also has a very interesting property as an adjective, and that it's impossible to use the word dynamic in a pejorative sense. Try thinking of some combination that will possibly give it a pejorative meaning. It's impossible. Thus, I thought dynamic programming was a good name. It was something not even a Congressman could object to. So I used it as an umbrella for my activities."

Post reply on HN