3 ms·
> the only ones making actual breakthrough for money reasons That's also a suggestion that those aren't breakthroughs. They are just someone getting 1% because
by inimino 7y ago
> the only ones making actual breakthrough for money reasons
That's also a suggestion that those aren't breakthroughs. They are just someone getting 1% because their corporate sponsor spent $250k more than the other guys.
Look at the ideas, not the results. Is there something new and is it clearly expressed? If you can't answer that in five minutes, move on. Ideas transfer, results don't.
In particular, if an ML paper abstract states a percentage improvement over SOTA and then lists five existing techniques that were combined to get the result, you can just put it directly on the trash pile.
- mam2 7y agoMm i get the point but i disagree that "money" only bring small percentage. Entire new possibilities can be uncovered. For example I was thinking to these papers for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vppFvq2quQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vppFvq2quQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOxxPcy5Gr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOxxPcy5Gr4 As another proof the entire concept of neural network exists since the 80's. It's the fact of using it on new hardware (the GPUs) which made it so important. And the "new hardware" is always expensive. In 10 years also maybe every startup will have a massive cluster instead of a 4 GPU PC with current flops capabilities (which was luxury a few decades ago)