> Ten+ years into the DL revolution and we are still getting shallow hit piece articles like this from IEEE. I think the latest IEEE articles have been a littl

> Ten+ years into the DL revolution and we are still getting shallow hit piece articles like this from IEEE. I think the latest IEEE articles have been a little intellectually lightweight, perhaps we're just simply not their audience. Still, in the style of IEEE papers, I would like to see references for the claims made. > But all the people throwing rocks at Deep Learning have failed to propose anything that actually works better I was thinking something similar. DL for sure has problems, but I am yet to see something better. ART doesn't just need to be better, it needs to be better in _at least_ one of: accuracy, training time, recall time, amount of training data, quality of training data.