3 ms·
You see it all the time, "Deep Learning is not needed, in reality all you need is linear/logistic regression!" etc. Then you have to work with such people that
by bitL 4y ago
You see it all the time, "Deep Learning is not needed, in reality all you need is linear/logistic regression!" etc. Then you have to work with such people that sabotage anything outside their narrow view of how things have to be.
- Ancapistani 4y agoAh, but they hold those views for a reason! It's likely that they've seen deep learning used to solve problems in the past that are more suitable to a simple regression. They may not have seen it used to solve problems where regressions failed. In your place, I'd dive into why they feel the way they do. Maybe they're right! More likely, maybe you're using deep learning for jobs it isn't best suited.
- bitL 4y agoThis attitude typically isn't about the "best tool for the job", i.e. do I really need DL or are decision trees or some regression sufficient for what I need to achieve? But about the persistent "you don't need DL at all!" stance. In a way I understand it, for example if somebody finished their computer vision PhD before Deep Learning and don't want to admit their knowledge is now next to useless for most industry cases...
- ska 4y ago> and don't want to admit their knowledge is now next to useless for most industry cases... Jokes on both of them: the DL knowledge is also next to useless for most industry cases.