10 ms·
It's mainly the discomfort of the people who were left behind by DL speaking, not much else to see. We should absolutely let the data speak for itself.
by pishpash 5y ago
It's mainly the discomfort of the people who were left behind by DL speaking, not much else to see. We should absolutely let the data speak for itself.
- mardifoufs 5y agoYeah you are right, & it's a bit just dogmatic at this point. I guess there's also a clash between purists that have an idea on how an ideal AI should be vs the others who are a lot more results focused. Nobody that I know in the DL community wouldn't be excited to switch to another method if it meant achieving actual measurable improvements. So if the data was conclusive, the alternatives would be used. No one cares about the purity of the method or whatever, because the messiness is inherent to DL. Also, the current AI community is very very focused on performance and state of the art results (that can be a problem in some cases but not w.r.t to method agnosticism) rather than on any big theories on how human intelligence ought to be translated mathematically (or not)