5 ms·

I'm curious about that book (The Master Algorithm): I began reading it, but stopped early because I got the impression it would be too "entry-level" for me, thu

by cjauvin 11y ago

rayuela 11y ago
If you're experienced in ML or AI then most of the material in the book will seem pretty elementary. His thesis is interesting as he expresses an interest in unifying the various different approaches to the creation of an intelligent machine. I would recommend youtubing one of the talks he's given in recent months. He's basically been going around giving a 1 hour summary of the book.
mindcrime 11y ago
I'm curious about that book (The Master Algorithm): I began reading it, but stopped early because I got the impression it would be too "entry-level" for me, thus a waste of my time. Should I consider keeping on with it, and why? It's hard to say. It's not a deeply technical book, I will say that. The main value I found in it, is that he covers a broad base of different techniques and then lays out some ideas on how they could all be combined to make a "general purpose learner". I found it worth reading, but YMMV.
mattmcknight 11y ago
I would say no, if you already understand the varieties of techniques it covers. It doesn't get more advanced. However, it is a decent historical overview. He also pushes the same idea over and over again that there must be a master algorithm, when I got the feeling very early on that it wasn't a necessary thing or a practical concept to guide research. It's like arguing that you have to choose between electricity and magnetism, when they might just be aspects of the same underlying forces. Also, his reasons for claiming that certain algorithms are not the master algorithm are pretty weak and based on current progress, not theoretical limitations.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  What does he have to say about the No Free Lunch Theorem and the bias-variance tradeoff?

by cjauvin 11y ago

rayuela 11y ago

If you're experienced in ML or AI then most of the material in the book will seem pretty elementary. His thesis is interesting as he expresses an interest in unifying the various different approaches to the creation of an intelligent machine. I would recommend youtubing one of the talks he's given in recent months. He's basically been going around giving a 1 hour summary of the book.

mindcrime 11y ago

I'm curious about that book (The Master Algorithm): I began reading it, but stopped early because I got the impression it would be too "entry-level" for me, thus a waste of my time. Should I consider keeping on with it, and why? It's hard to say. It's not a deeply technical book, I will say that. The main value I found in it, is that he covers a broad base of different techniques and then lays out some ideas on how they could all be combined to make a "general purpose learner". I found it worth reading, but YMMV.

mattmcknight 11y ago

I would say no, if you already understand the varieties of techniques it covers. It doesn't get more advanced. However, it is a decent historical overview. He also pushes the same idea over and over again that there must be a master algorithm, when I got the feeling very early on that it wasn't a necessary thing or a practical concept to guide research. It's like arguing that you have to choose between electricity and magnetism, when they might just be aspects of the same underlying forces. Also, his reasons for claiming that certain algorithms are not the master algorithm are pretty weak and based on current progress, not theoretical limitations.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
What does he have to say about the No Free Lunch Theorem and the bias-variance tradeoff?