4 ms·
Although I would agree that GANs are part of machine learning, some people definitely do disagree, and their concerns are valid. It's definitely an area of open
by argonaut 9y ago
Although I would agree that GANs are part of machine learning, some people definitely do disagree, and their concerns are valid. It's definitely an area of open research.
Your third point is actually the point of those who disagree. It's the same reason why we have the principle of unfalsifiability in science.
- chillee 9y agoI'm a bit confused about the point that you're stating. I've never seen anybody not group GANs under machine learning. Machine learning is typically split into supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning, and GANs are usually considered part of unsupervised learning. I guess the part I don't understand is what you mean by "their concerns are valid"? What are their concerns about? Whether GANs are a promising path of research? And if GANs aren't part of machine learning what are they?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- yorwba 9y agoThe difficulty of evaluating GANs is nowhere near the level of unfalsifiability, and it is not caused by GANs themselves being a bad technique, but by the problem space they are applied in. When you are trying to generate "realistic" samples of human concepts, the ultimate measure of evaluation is whether humans think that the output is realistic. So you have no choice but to ask humans to judge the quality of your results. That's a standard thing to do e.g. in text-to-speech generation, whether GANs are used or not.