3 ms·
> 2. if deep nlp can provide us with more efficiency than what is stated above then wouldn't it be safe to assume that is UNREASONABLY efficient? Why? Neural n
by traek 10y ago
> 2. if deep nlp can provide us with more efficiency than what is stated above then wouldn't it be safe to assume that is UNREASONABLY efficient?
Why? Neural nets can already detect skin cancer as well as human dermatologists [1]. Why would you assume that your algorithm is the peak of efficiency and anything that performs better is "unreasonable"?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13484372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13484372
- demonshalo 10y agoI didn't say that I assume mine to be the peak. My intention was to point out that any efficiency that could be reached beyond what is statistically possible (i.e. if you only rely on statistical metrics and parsing), could be considered unreasonably efficient. At least, there is an argument for that to be made. My method should in no way, shape or form be considered as a "peak".
- ska 10y agoNeural nets can already detect skin cancer as well as human dermatologists For what it is worth, that statement is way too strong for what the linked article and paper show.