3 ms·
I fail to see what's wrong with this: it's open-source, and anybody can write different libraries, or libraries that use all the low-level work ($$$ paying expe
by halflings 9y ago
I fail to see what's wrong with this: it's open-source, and anybody can write different libraries, or libraries that use all the low-level work ($$$ paying experienced/skilled engineers) that Google pours into making tensorflow.
Alternatives exist (PyTorch by facebook, theano, caffe, etc.) in any case, and the best solution wins. (in the same way scikit-learn once eclipsed all other ML libraries, but some would still use xgboost which had superior Gradient Boosting Trees).
- sillysaurus3 9y agothe best solution wins Minor quibble, but: not really. The earliest solution wins, e.g. rails. It has to be good enough, but after a certain point "best" stops mattering.
- omot 9y ago> The earliest solution wins Minor minor quibble, but: not really. The earliest solution wins, unless there is a 10x better solution, e.g Google. There were a lot of good enough options, but after a certain benchmark "earliest" stops mattering.
- ehsankia 9y agoAbsolutely. To me, it's very similar to programming languages. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if people use Google's Go, C++, or some other language. What matters is what's produced by it: the actual research and results. When you see a useful program that helps you be much more productive, you don't really care if it was coded in c++ or python. The one part Google does care about is being able to sell Cloud TPU, but I don't think that by using this tool you're instantly in under their control.
- davedx 9y agoMost of the time I agree with this, but some areas (where e.g. Google make Dart but also make Chrome), I think there are risks.