2 ms·

Optimization against a kinda-good-enough loss function is better than no optimization at all, which is what usually happens with the giant pile of random progra

Optimization against a kinda-good-enough loss function is better than no optimization at all, which is what usually happens with the giant pile of random program parameters that every program relies on.

taeric 7y ago
Can be. Can also be just as wrong. In particular, my challenge is that in most programs the "loss" function that is of interest to the user is actually not visible. Why I picked the thermostat example. It doesn't know if you are there or not. Or what the cost of electricity is right now. Or what the average temperature outside will be in 2 hours. It can be made aware of all of these things, but that will itself be a large part of the complexity. Such that "just optimize this loss function" is not wrong. Just, I challenge how much it helps.
- sdenton4 7y ago
  I think it can definitely help in the thermostat example. This was literally the original value proposition of the Nest Thermostat, and they went to some length to demonstrate that they were effective, using both internal and third-party studies. The claim is an average of $130 in energy savings per customer per year... Which translates directly into a positive effect for carbon emissions. https://storage.googleapis.com/nest-public-downloads/press/documents/energy-savings-white-paper.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/nest-public-downloads/press/d... So, if you throw a whole lot of effort at it today, it can work well! I just want this sort of thing to be more automatic.
  - taeric 7y ago
    Exactly, I feel there is stuff there. I just don't feel it is as simple as a loss function. It generally is more capability and more data. The nest is odd, to me, as I live without an air conditioner. So, at best, it can keep things off when we are not at home. But, you can't just turn on when we are home, as at that point it is too late to hit and maintain comfort before bed. So, we are back to adding more to my house just to support the data and control this is looking to bolster. Which is almost certainly a net negative, all told. :(

taeric 7y ago

Can be. Can also be just as wrong. In particular, my challenge is that in most programs the "loss" function that is of interest to the user is actually not visible. Why I picked the thermostat example. It doesn't know if you are there or not. Or what the cost of electricity is right now. Or what the average temperature outside will be in 2 hours. It can be made aware of all of these things, but that will itself be a large part of the complexity. Such that "just optimize this loss function" is not wrong. Just, I challenge how much it helps.

sdenton4 7y ago
I think it can definitely help in the thermostat example. This was literally the original value proposition of the Nest Thermostat, and they went to some length to demonstrate that they were effective, using both internal and third-party studies. The claim is an average of $130 in energy savings per customer per year... Which translates directly into a positive effect for carbon emissions. https://storage.googleapis.com/nest-public-downloads/press/documents/energy-savings-white-paper.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/nest-public-downloads/press/d... So, if you throw a whole lot of effort at it today, it can work well! I just want this sort of thing to be more automatic.
- taeric 7y ago
  Exactly, I feel there is stuff there. I just don't feel it is as simple as a loss function. It generally is more capability and more data. The nest is odd, to me, as I live without an air conditioner. So, at best, it can keep things off when we are not at home. But, you can't just turn on when we are home, as at that point it is too late to hit and maintain comfort before bed. So, we are back to adding more to my house just to support the data and control this is looking to bolster. Which is almost certainly a net negative, all told. :(