3 ms·
This one really hits the nail: "They are really just another type of optimizer for maximum likelihood" But like always in our industry - we have to hype somet
by pojzon 7y ago
This one really hits the nail:
"They are really just another type of optimizer for maximum likelihood"
But like always in our industry - we have to hype something beyond believe to keep new projects rolling.
Ill let ppl dream but I know enough to see how it all will end.. like always..
- MiroF 7y agoDo you actually work in the ML industry? Or are you just saying software writ large? If you actually work in the ML industry, I find it astonishing that you don't think that there have been major breakthroughs in the last 7 years
- rurp 7y agoIf only people directly working in ML notice these advancements, I don't think it makes sense to be astonished that some people do not consider them "major breakthroughs".
- MiroF 7y agoWait, so is ML overhyped or not? First I thought that everybody was covering AI as the next big thing which is absurd. But now, "nobody notices these advancements"? Which is it? My astonishment that you didn't think there had been any breakthroughs was only if you directly worked in ML, otherwise you are just misinformed.
- pojzon 7y agoShould I be astonished by some field which recently got a lot of traction* made some breakthroughs ? (*investors money) I'm just stating that "again" in our industry, masses will now flock to "new shiny thing" simply because it is hyped and investors throw money at it. While managers will try to fit ML/DL/AI into pretty much anything either if it makes sense or not.
- MiroF 7y ago> recently got a lot of traction This flips causality - funding didn't really really pick up until the last 5 years or so - about two years after the initial breakthrough. Look, I agree with this comment - managers are super eager to apply ML to tasks it has no business being applied to (at least yet). But your original claim was that all the new techniques are just glorified maximum likelihood optimization. That's just false.