4 ms·
Something can be both legitimately revolutionary/interesting, but also significantly over-hyped and misrepresented, often with strong for-profit incentives. Som
by ve55 6y ago
Something can be both legitimately revolutionary/interesting, but also significantly over-hyped and misrepresented, often with strong for-profit incentives. Some recent good examples of this include progress in cryptocurrencies, decentralization, and ML/AI.
- zozbot234 6y agoSure, but many people disagree that ML itself is revolutionary. The basics of it were known (referred to, quite appropriately, as 'data mining') as early as the 1990s and perhaps earlier. We've added a smattering of new techniques since then, and compute power has been expanded via GPGPU, but there was no "revolutionary" shift in the field. Even multi-layer ("deep") neural networks are very old tech.
- rorykoehler 6y agoAs evidenced by gpt3 we still don’t know the best way to use deep learning. More data improved the outcome dramatically. What else might surprise us?
- colincooke 6y agoThe smattering of new techniques seem to have made the difference between success on toy problems vs. being able to match or exceed human performance on many difficult tasks. So while naysayers are correct that "the math hasn't changed since the 90s!", enough has changed to make calling DL a paradigm shift accurate. For reference, I can now get an intern to images for a few hours, then train a black box algorithm to automate their efforts in another few hours. This algorithm is sensitive, brittle, and may have perfomance issues, but it's still already orders of magnitudes better than what took days or months of effort prior. That to me is a revolution, regardless of the math.
- tasogare 6y ago> then train a black box algorithm This is part of the problem. Finding a the value of a few hyperparameters is hardly something I consider interesting science.
- gugagore 6y agoIn the recent success stories on images, audio, and text, it's not "a few hyperparameters" by any stretch of the imagination. That's like saying "finding the sequence of assembly instructions / nucleotides / ... is hardly something I consider interesting science"
- nerdponx 6y agoCome on, really? Electric motors and lithium batteries aren't new either. So much for the EV revolution, nothing to see here.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y agoI assume you're being sarcastic, but there actually isn't anything to see. Plug-in hybrids blow any EV out of the water and will do so the foreseeable future. They're cheaper, lighter, just as efficient on short trips, and much more practical on long trips. Hybrid vehicles are the practical option today. Pure gasoline vehicles are outmoded and EVs are all hype.
- Zanni 6y agoAnd I'll assume you've never driven an EV, because almost everyone who has purchased an EV will never go back to an ICE vehicle. An EV purchase is a ratchet. Hybrids make a lot of sense for some people today, but battery electric vehicles are the inevitable future.
- xirbeosbwo1234 6y agoYou would assume incorrectly. Most people just plain do not care about cars aside from using them to get around. For all practical purposes, a plug-in hybrid/range-extended EV eats a BEV for breakfast. If we are talking about something making sense rather than being cool, then hybrids are the only thing that makes any sense for most people. And if someone does care about cars, why would they choose a 4000-pound sedan? They can go fast in a straight line, sure, but the handling is atrocious. I guess people buy Mustangs and Chargers, so I guess the reason is bad taste.
- UncleMeat 6y agoPerceptrons are indeed old tech. But try training models for even something as simple as handwriting recognition using techniques from the 90s and modern techniques but with the same training set and compute resources. You'll get much better results with the modern stuff.