2 ms·
It's hard to ask my question without sounding a bit naive :-) Back in the early nineties I did some work with convoluted neural nets, except that at that time
by mikekchar 8y ago
It's hard to ask my question without sounding a bit naive :-) Back in the early nineties I did some work with convoluted neural nets, except that at that time we didn't call them "convoluted". They were just the neural nets that were not provably uninteresting :-) My biggest problem was that I didn't have enough hardware and so I put that kind of stuff on a shelf waiting for hardware to improve (which it did, but I never got back to that shelf).
What I find a bit strange is the excitement that's going on. I find a lot of these results pretty expected. Or at least this is what I and anybody I talked to at the time seemed to think would happen. Of course, the thing about science is that sometimes you have to do the boring work of seeing if it does, indeed, work like that. So while I've been glancing sidelong at the ML work going on, it's been mostly a checklist of "Oh cool. So it does work. I'm glad".
The excitement has really been catching me off guard, though. It's as if nobody else expected it to work like this. This in turn makes me wonder if I'm being stupidly naive. Normally I find when somebody thinks, "Oh it was obvious" it's because they had an oversimplified view of it and it just happened to superficially match with reality. I suspect that's the case with me :-)
For those doing research in the area (and I know there are some people here), what have been the biggest discoveries/hurdles that we've overcome in the last 20 or 30 years? In retrospect, what were the biggest worries you had in terms of wondering if it would work the way you thought it might? Going forward, what are the most obvious hurdles that, if they don't work out might slow down or halt our progression?
- aabajian 8y agoIf you haven't, you should take a few moments to read the original AlexNet paper (only 11 pages): https://papers.nips.cc/paper/4824-imagenet-classification-with-deep-convolutional-neural-networks.pdf https://papers.nips.cc/paper/4824-imagenet-classification-wi... What you're saying is true, it should have worked in theory, but it just wasn't working for decades. The AlexNet team made several critical optimizations to get it work: (a) big network, (b) training on GPU, and (c) using a ReLU instead of tanh(x). In the end, it was the hardware that made it possible, but up until their paper it really wasn't for sure. A good analogy is the invention of the airplane. You can speculate all you want about the curvature of a bird's wing and lift, but until you actual build a wing that flies, it's all speculation.
- pwbdecker 8y agoI feel the same way. I was working on NN research in the 2000s and spent all my time trying to optimize the performance to deal with non trivial data sets. I got as far as working on GPU implementations around 2008 before I moved on to other subjects, but seeing these results now is incredibly validating. There was no shortage of profs and grad students that scoffed at me at the time. I still kick myself for not keeping up with it
- dchichkov 8y agoWe've learned to learn cost functions, instead of hardcoding. Discriminative models are always worriesome. Nuclear war, unexpected deterioration of democracy or unexpected and rapid change of climate.