3 ms·
This article is biased as it only cites those couple of fields or problems where neural nets have not made significant improvements (even that part is shady as
by seesawtron 6y ago
This article is biased as it only cites those couple of fields or problems where neural nets have not made significant improvements (even that part is shady as I am not familar with that much).
There have been significant improvements in the architecture of NNs in the last decade unlike what this article claims. This article doesn't mention anything about GANs or Autoencoders or VAEs or Flow or recent NLP advancements which are clearly way way better than what we have seen 5 years ago. Seems like the authors are living in 2015.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thraway180306 6y agoYou are complaining how the article doesn't mention GANs while replying to a comment about article's treatment of GANs. Revealing you are biased against even reading the biased article, or comprehending the parent comment.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago>> This article doesn't mention anything about GANs or Autoencoders or VAEs or Flow or recent NLP advancements which are clearly way way better than what we have seen 5 years ago. A result about GANs is prominent in the article.