4 ms·
Good article, but ugh, please leave Shakespeare alone if (as you freely admit) you don't know anything about Shakespeare. Just because the real thing sounds st
by gavinpc 10y ago
Good article, but ugh, please leave Shakespeare alone if (as you freely admit) you don't know anything about Shakespeare. Just because the real thing sounds strange to you doesn't mean that your "samples" are anything but nonsense.
edit To (preemptively) stress that I am not trolling: I find the topic and the writeup interesting and useful, and I appreciate the work that people do to share their experiences. But this is not a good example of the RNN working; it's a good example of the RNN not working, and should either be omitted or presented at least neutrally, instead of glibly saying
> I can barely recognize these samples from actual Shakespeare :)
- scott_s 10y agoIt works about as well/poorly as the other examples (Paul Graham, Wikipedia, math in LaTex). The samples from all of the examples are nonsense. What's interesting is that they, mostly, follow the form of the original.
- gavinpc 10y agoFair enough. My objection was that the OP implies this is a passable substitute, but okay, in the larger context it's clearly a joke.
- jcranmer 10y agoI think it's a usual tendency of NNs to produce output that looks meaningful to non-experts, yet is complete gibberish to experts. At a PLDI2016 keynote, the presenter gave this example from running an RNN on all PLDI submissions: "We present a convenient alias analysis that attains a number of queries in a typedef style." (fuller context, with the surrounding sentences being more bizarre may be found here: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ckrintz/PLDI2016-keynote-final-zorn.pdf http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ckrintz/PLDI2016-keynote-final-zorn....).