4 ms·

> You can measure the effectiveness of a neutral network to know how tweaking the number of parameters affects it We can throw darts to the board and measure h

by a_c 4y ago

> You can measure the effectiveness of a neutral network to know how tweaking the number of parameters affects it We can throw darts to the board and measure how close we are to the bullseye. Then we can tune parameters like throwing force, elbow angel, etc. These parameters have physical meaning. We can reason that by throwing harder, the trajectory of the dart can be so and so affected, hence causing the dart to fall closer to or further from the bullseye. Regarding "People would not be able to write code to do training or inference if they didn't know what is happening in the network", I understand from an operation perspective what the neurons are doing, but I also don't get what they are doing, if that makes sense. For example in each layer of a CNN, is it doing Fourier transform, low pass filtering, rotating, scaling or whatever? And even if they are, why does it work? Why does it give the result that we want? Can we reason that varying our throwing force will change the trajectory of the dart? Shouldn't we do that? Or we are happy with getting results of hot dog/not hot dog [1]. There lies my uneasiness with ML. I agree with cycrutchfield's comment that practice outrun theory though. We will learn more as we progress. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIci3C4JkL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIci3C4JkL0

charcircuit 4y ago
>We can throw darts to the board and measure how close we are to the bullseye. Then we can tune parameters like throwing force, elbow angel, etc. These parameters have physical meaning. We can reason that by throwing harder, the trajectory of the dart can be so and so affected, hence causing the dart to fall closer to or further from the bullseye. This is how Newtonian physics is derived. Similar to neural networks you create an approximation based off your observations. The actual reason why those approximations work is not necessary to be known to utilize Newtonian physics. >in each layer of a CNN, is it doing Fourier transform, low pass filtering, rotating, scaling or whatever? And even if they are, why does it work? Why does it give the result that we want? What the layers themselves are actually doing doesn't really matter and each one is just a part of a larger system. What is important is finding a set of weights that approximates a function that minimizes loss. People care about the ability to find this approximations. What exactly it is found is less of a concern. >Or we are happy with getting results of hot dog/not hot dog Neural networks are not limited to binary classification.

by a_c 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago

>We can throw darts to the board and measure how close we are to the bullseye. Then we can tune parameters like throwing force, elbow angel, etc. These parameters have physical meaning. We can reason that by throwing harder, the trajectory of the dart can be so and so affected, hence causing the dart to fall closer to or further from the bullseye. This is how Newtonian physics is derived. Similar to neural networks you create an approximation based off your observations. The actual reason why those approximations work is not necessary to be known to utilize Newtonian physics. >in each layer of a CNN, is it doing Fourier transform, low pass filtering, rotating, scaling or whatever? And even if they are, why does it work? Why does it give the result that we want? What the layers themselves are actually doing doesn't really matter and each one is just a part of a larger system. What is important is finding a set of weights that approximates a function that minimizes loss. People care about the ability to find this approximations. What exactly it is found is less of a concern. >Or we are happy with getting results of hot dog/not hot dog Neural networks are not limited to binary classification.