3 ms·
You stated that Andrej Karpathy ignores the history of neural networks and posits a misleading picture. While you gave a very brief history of Neural Networks,
by monkmartinez 9y ago
You stated that Andrej Karpathy ignores the history of neural networks and posits a misleading picture. While you gave a very brief history of Neural Networks, you failed (imo, BIG TIME) to make a point.
First, you really should look into what Mr. Karpathy has done. Second, none of these "old" algorithms were useful in the 40's and 50' because there was no internet and very little data. They are only becoming useful now due to the explosion of data. So, it stands to reason that it Mr. Karpathy isn't ignoring history out of malice, he is ignoring it because it doesn't fucking matter... at all.
- pron 9y agoThe point, simply put, is that neural networks have felt like a revolution for 75 years, while little actual progress has been made. That they have finally proven to be effective at statistical clustering, and so are becoming very practical for some important tasks, is very cool, but declaring them to be a revolution or the road to AI is premature. The attitude displayed in the post is not only unjustified by the actual achievement (we are still far from achieving even insect-level "intelligence" or actually replacing a significant portion of "software 1.0") but has actually seriously harmed the very research subject, that I assume Mr. Karpathy wants to foster, in the past. AI research has been seriously burned by over-enthusiastic optimism before; it should learn the lesson.