3 ms·
Interesting how you consider interpolating from training data not learning. Isn't that like exactly what learning is? If you get unintended repeating patterns t
by RugnirViking 10y ago
Interesting how you consider interpolating from training data not learning. Isn't that like exactly what learning is? If you get unintended repeating patterns then there isn't enough diverse training data
- tn13 10y agoIf there is not enough diverse training data then perhaps you should not call it learning in first place. The whole notion of learning is about algorithm + correct train data meant to make sense of certain kind of test data. All three components matter a lot and it is something that even the experts sometimes seem to miss. Running a crude algorithm some small set of training data specifically meant to amaze you on specific algorithm have very little information content.
- ClassyJacket 10y agoI'm not an expert in deep learning (yet) so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Technically I see no reason you couldn't say that meets the definition of learning. But perhaps that's asking the wrong question. Dictionaries aside, one might decide that a useful standard of "learning" in certain contexts is to have a level of understanding of the subject. And then we ask, does the system have understanding? What is understanding? A system that only interpolates training data can't logically become consistently better at the task than the data it learns from. Whereas a a sufficiently deep learning system (including, but not limited to, a human) can defeat its master.