Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#51

Post by packetslave »

nkraft wrote: post #20
psbp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Coursera followed the Udacity model. I always find out about these classes after they're already weeks in progress or over.

Unless you're attached to getting a certificate of completion, you can pretty much follow the Udacity model. As long as the course hasn't finished, sign up and get around to the videos and assignments when you get to them. There isn't the same discussion forum interchange, and your homework isn't graded, but they don't drop the class from your list even if you do nothing during the run.

Note that you'll want to be careful to cache the materials offline if you do this, especially if you plan on "catching up" after the formal end date for the class. Some of the courses (notably the Princeton algorithms ones) disable access to the materials once the official course ends.

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#52

Post by aswanson »

wookietrader wrote: post #33
jhartmann wrote: post #4

I've said this before, but deep learning is terribly powerful precisely because you don't have to spend lots of time doing feature engineering. Multi layer networks that are trained in semi-supervised, unsupervised and supervised fashions all can now produce networks that meet or beat the state of the art hand created models for speech, handwriting recognition, ocr, and object recognition. We are only just beginning…

This has been said about neural nets two times already. Sadly, they did never deliver. There are still applications where e.g. random forests beat the crap out of all kinds of deep learning algorithms in (a) training time (b) predictive quality (c) prediction time. We should stop hyping this. I am a researcher working in deep learning myself, but the current deep learning hype is actually what makes me worry that I w…

Can you recommend any introductory papers in the area, or keywords to look for aside from the obvious?

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#53

Post by Cushman »

incision wrote: post #39
Cushman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with using personal experience for reference so long as it is properly cited. It beats "This guy is wrong (source: random blog post that I didn't really read)", anyway. Edit: To be clear, I don't love the Reddit snowclones, but there's nothing wrong with the sentiment behind "I'm a scholar in this field, and I think this guy is a hack."

>Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with using personal experience for reference so long as it is properly cited. I agree with the sentiment, but "properly cited" suggests a bit more than a one line comment from a username with barely a handful of posts (generally pertaining to bitcoin and intermediate level networking certifications) on an anonymous website. >It beats "This guy is wrong (source: random blog post that…

> I agree with the sentiment, but "properly cited" suggests a bit more than a one line comment from a username with barely a handful of posts (generally pertaining to bitcoin and intermediate level networking certifications) on an anonymous website.

Isn't the purpose of citing claims precisely so others can effectively verify or discount their validity?

Citation: a post from an anonymous Internet user who claims to have a graduate degree. Take it for what it is. What's wrong with that?

> I have to disagree. At least a random blog post presents the potential for useful information or a fully articulated opinion. What we here is 4 words and an unsubstantiated appeal to authority.

Conversely, it is far easier to engage in vigorous debate on HN than a random blog. I call it a wash.

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#54

Post by Jach »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #23

We should stop trying to claim every new method is "like the brain". We don't have any clear understanding of how the brain works. One can be inspired by a particular and likely wrong cognitive theory, but one can not say one is building "machines that can process data in much the same way the brain does" truthfully without a deeper, and currently unavailable, understanding of the functioning of the human brain.

I feel the same way, that researchers should stop trying to mimic the brain, but not because we don't understand the brain. While I think there are still several decades before we'll be able to have mind uploads, I also think a lot of people underestimate the quality of modern brain science. In any case, I have the same reason as Dijkstra for why I think mimicking the brain isn't that great an idea. In http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036... (really a great read to branch all sorts of thoughts off of) Dijkstra said, "The effort of using machines to mimic the human mind has always struck me as rather silly: I'd rather use them to mimic something better."

It's probably a harder problem, creating smarter-than-human intelligence on a machine, but research isn't as constrained by laws and ethics (they don't have to bemoan not being able to experiment with living human brains). I wish more people were active in the area.

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#55

Post by ivanist »

pfg wrote: post #45
ivanist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took this one https://www.coursera.org/course/ml and it started on Apr 22 and ends around July 1st I think. So not sure what course you are talking about.

Well, this is weird. I'm taking the exact same course and here's what I see for the first programming assignment: http://i.imgur.com/GyEwcUG.png (same with review questions)

Sorry my bad. I was under that assumption since I saw that the hard deadline for review questions were today, so I thought that must hold for the programming assignment.

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#56

Post by IvyMike »

konstruktor wrote: post #10
drcross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kurzweil is a hack. (Source: I've an Msc in Robotics and read all his books)

Please think about what a source is. This isn't reddit.

I thought the statement was obviously a playful joking way to point out this was his personal opinion.

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#57

Post by krichman »

konstruktor wrote: post #24
Cushman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with using personal experience for reference so long as it is properly cited. It beats "This guy is wrong (source: random blog post that I didn't really read)", anyway. Edit: To be clear, I don't love the Reddit snowclones, but there's nothing wrong with the sentiment behind "I'm a scholar in this field, and I think this guy is a hack."

So misapplying the term source and saying that one has a degree gives one enough credibility as a scholar to turn a dismissive and colloquial statement into a worthwhile contribution to a discussion about AI?

In this case the term "source" is obviously a rhetoric device, and we can avoid a lot of pedantry by noting that the poster was totally transparent about his reasoning thus achieving the ends we want via means that aren't awful. PS having a degree by definition implies some credibility as a scholar.

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#58

Post by pseut »

Cushman wrote: post #53
incision wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bullshit. There is nothing wrong with using personal experience for reference so long as it is properly cited. I agree with the sentiment, but "properly cited" suggests a bit more than a one line comment from a username with barely a handful of posts (generally pertaining to bitcoin and intermediate level networking certifications) on an anonymous website. >It beats "This guy is wrong (source: random blog post that…

> I agree with the sentiment, but "properly cited" suggests a bit more than a one line comment from a username with barely a handful of posts (generally pertaining to bitcoin and intermediate level networking certifications) on an anonymous website. Isn't the purpose of citing claims precisely so others can effectively verify or discount their validity? Citation: a post from an anonymous Internet user who claims to h…

No, I think the purpose of citing claims is to demonstrate that they have validity. People can disagree about what constitutes "validity" and the citation is often inappropriate. But you shouldn't intentionally cite a source that shows your claim has no support, you just shouldn't make the claim. (at least, that's my impression of hnetiquette)

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#59

Post by guiambros »

etherealG wrote: post #14
rzendacott wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's awesome to hear! I'm taking the Coursera class now, and it's been great so far. It just started a couple weeks ago, so it definitely isn't too late to join! https://www.coursera.org/course/ml

thanks very much for pointing this out, joined the class now, hope i can catch up

Keep it going! I attended the very first one (~75%), and then did a second time last year. It was then easy to get to a perfect 100% score, having done most of the exercises during the first time.

It is one of the best Coursera classes. I had a blast, and strongly recommend it. I decided to continue learning ML, mostly because Prof. Ng.

Re: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI

#60

Post by Cushman »

pseut wrote: post #58
Cushman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree with the sentiment, but "properly cited" suggests a bit more than a one line comment from a username with barely a handful of posts (generally pertaining to bitcoin and intermediate level networking certifications) on an anonymous website. Isn't the purpose of citing claims precisely so others can effectively verify or discount their validity? Citation: a post from an anonymous Internet user who claims to h…

No, I think the purpose of citing claims is to demonstrate that they have validity. People can disagree about what constitutes "validity" and the citation is often inappropriate. But you shouldn't intentionally cite a source that shows your claim has no support, you just shouldn't make the claim. (at least, that's my impression of hnetiquette)

Academic citation isn't an honor system. They're there so you can look them up. That said, your point is effectively what I was saying in that the statement "I have personal experience with this" taken in good faith is much more supportive than a link which does not actually support my point, yet the latter frequently passes without comment.
Post reply on HN