4 ms·
they are also quite clearly not purely statistical correlation machines, and there is a lot of evidence to show for this, such as the surprisingly similarities
by codesushi42 7y ago
they are also quite clearly not purely statistical correlation machines, and there is a lot of evidence to show for this, such as the surprisingly similarities of ConvNets with low level human perception, etc.
Wrong.
If you actually study signal processing, you will find out that CNNs aren't something magically rooted in something other than "statistical correlation machines." CNNs in fact work because they're used to calculate cross correlation!
"Convolving" in terms of a CNN is a misnomer, it's the same as calculating cross correlation in terms of signal processing.
- deepnotderp 7y agoYeah, I'm aware that it's cross-correlation from the signal processing world, there are a lot of misnomers like that in the DL world, e.g. "deconvolutions", etc. > Wrong. The best way to respond to this, somewhat humorously would be "Wrong".
- codesushi42 7y agoThat wasn't the point. The point was, contrary to your claims, CNNs are indeed all about statistical correlation.
- deepnotderp 7y agoIt seems odd that GANs would learn to generate images with precise yet lifelike shape and texture based purely on statistical correlation.
- codesushi42 7y agoNo it doesn't. Because that's what the CNNs used by the GANs are fitting on, cross correlation.