7 ms·

"We" are not forbidding you to open a computer, start experimenting and publishing some new method. If you're so convinced that "we" are stuck in a local maxima

by gwervc 3y ago

"We" are not forbidding you to open a computer, start experimenting and publishing some new method. If you're so convinced that "we" are stuck in a local maxima, you can do some of the work you are advocating instead of asking other to do it for you.

Kerb_ 3y ago
You can think chemotherapy is a local maxima for cancer treatment and hope medical research seeks out other options without having the resources to do it yourself. Not all of us have access to the tools and resources to start experimenting as casually as we wish we could.
- erisinger 3y ago
  Not a single one of you bigbrains used the word "maxima" correctly and it's driving me crazy.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    As I understand it a local maxima means you’re at a local peak but there may be higher maximums elsewhere. As I read it, transformers are a local maximum in the sense of outperforming all other ML techniques as the AI technique that gets the closest to human intelligence. Can you help my little brain understand the problem by elaborating? Also you may want to chill with the personal attacks.
    - erisinger 3y ago
      Not a personal attack. These posters are smarter than I am, just ribbing them about misusing the terminology. "Maxima" is plural, "maximum" is singular. So you would say "a local maximum," or "several local maxima." Not "a local maxima" or, the one that really got me, "getting trapped in local maxima's." As for the rest of it, carry on. Good discussion.
      - FeepingCreature 3y ago
        A local maxima, that is, /usr/bin/wxmaxima...
        erisinger 3y ago
        Touché...
      - gyrovagueGeist 3y ago
        While "local maximas" is wrong, I think "a local maxima" is a valid way to say "a member of the set of local maxima" regardless of the number of elements in the set. It could even be a singleton.
        Tijdreiziger 3y ago
        You can't have one maxima in the same way you can't have one pencils. That's just how English works.
        pixl97 3y ago
        You can't have one local maxima, it would be the global maxima. So by saying local maxima you're assuming the local is just a piece of a larger whole, even if that global state is otherwise undefined.
        reverius42 3y ago
        No, you can’t have one local maxima, or one global maxima, because it’s plural. You can have one local or global maximum, or two (or more) local or global maxima.
        folli 3y ago
        "You can't have one local pencils, it would be the global pencils"
        dragonwriter 3y ago
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tschwimmer 3y ago
    yeah, not a Nissan in sight
  - antonvs 3y ago
    “Maxima” sounds fancy, making it catnip for people trying to sound smart.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- mikewarot 3y ago
  MNIST and other small and easy to train against datasets are widely available. You can try out anything you like even with a cheap laptop these days thanks to a few decades of Moore's law. It is definitely NOT out of your reach to try any ideas you have. Kaggle and other sites exist to make it easy. Good luck! 8)
  - retrofrost 3y ago
    My pet project has been trying to use elixir with NEAT or HyperNEAT to try and make a spiking network, then when thats working decently drop some glial interactions I saw in a paper. It would be kinda bad at purely functional stuff, but idk seems fun. The biggest problems are time and having to do a lot of both the evolutionary stuff and the network stuff. But yeah the ubiquity of free datasets does make it easy to train.
- importantbrian 3y ago
  Not to mention not everyone can be devoted to doing cancer research. Some Drs. and Nurses are necessary to you know actually treat the people who have cancer.
haltIncomplete 3y ago
All we’re doing is engineering new data compression and retrieval techniques: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10668 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10668 Are we sure there’s anything “net new” to find within the same old x86 machines, within the same old axiomatic systems of the past? Math is a few operations applied to carving up stuff and we believe we can do that infinitely in theory. So “all math that abides our axiomatic underpinnings” is valid regardless if we “prove it” or not. Physical space we can exist in, a middle ground of reality we evolved just so to exist in, seems to be finite; I can’t just up and move to Titan or Mars. So our computers are coupled to the same constraints of observation and understanding as us. What about daily life will be upended reconfirming decades old experiment? How is this not living in sunk cost fallacy? When all you have is a hammer… I’m reminded of Einstein’s quote about insanity.
- samus 3y ago
  If you abstract far enough then yes, everything what we are doing is somehow akin to what we have done before. But that then also applies to what Einstein has done.
- aldousd666 3y ago
  Einstein didn't say that about insanity, but... systems exist and are consistently described by particular equations at particular scales. Sure we can say everything is quantum mechanics, even classical physics can technically be translated as a series of wave functions that explain the same behaviors we observe, if we could measure it... But it's impractical, and some of the concepts we think of as fundamental to certain scales, like nucleons, didn't exist at others, like equations that describe the energy of empty space. So, it's maybe not quite a fallacy to point out that not every concept we find to be useful, like deep learning inference, encapsulate every rule at every scale that we know about down to the electrons, cogently. Because none of our theories do that, and even if they did, we couldn't measure or process all the things needed to check and see if we're even right. So we use models that differ from each other, but that emerge from each other, but only when we cross certain scale thresholds.

by gwervc 3y ago

Kerb_ 3y ago

You can think chemotherapy is a local maxima for cancer treatment and hope medical research seeks out other options without having the resources to do it yourself. Not all of us have access to the tools and resources to start experimenting as casually as we wish we could.

erisinger 3y ago
Not a single one of you bigbrains used the word "maxima" correctly and it's driving me crazy.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  As I understand it a local maxima means you’re at a local peak but there may be higher maximums elsewhere. As I read it, transformers are a local maximum in the sense of outperforming all other ML techniques as the AI technique that gets the closest to human intelligence. Can you help my little brain understand the problem by elaborating? Also you may want to chill with the personal attacks.
  - erisinger 3y ago
    Not a personal attack. These posters are smarter than I am, just ribbing them about misusing the terminology. "Maxima" is plural, "maximum" is singular. So you would say "a local maximum," or "several local maxima." Not "a local maxima" or, the one that really got me, "getting trapped in local maxima's." As for the rest of it, carry on. Good discussion.
    - FeepingCreature 3y ago
      A local maxima, that is, /usr/bin/wxmaxima...
      - erisinger 3y ago
        Touché...
    - gyrovagueGeist 3y ago
      While "local maximas" is wrong, I think "a local maxima" is a valid way to say "a member of the set of local maxima" regardless of the number of elements in the set. It could even be a singleton.
      - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
        You can't have one maxima in the same way you can't have one pencils. That's just how English works.
        pixl97 3y ago
        You can't have one local maxima, it would be the global maxima. So by saying local maxima you're assuming the local is just a piece of a larger whole, even if that global state is otherwise undefined.
        reverius42 3y ago
        No, you can’t have one local maxima, or one global maxima, because it’s plural. You can have one local or global maximum, or two (or more) local or global maxima.
        folli 3y ago
        "You can't have one local pencils, it would be the global pencils"
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tschwimmer 3y ago
  yeah, not a Nissan in sight
- antonvs 3y ago
  “Maxima” sounds fancy, making it catnip for people trying to sound smart.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
mikewarot 3y ago
MNIST and other small and easy to train against datasets are widely available. You can try out anything you like even with a cheap laptop these days thanks to a few decades of Moore's law. It is definitely NOT out of your reach to try any ideas you have. Kaggle and other sites exist to make it easy. Good luck! 8)
- retrofrost 3y ago
  My pet project has been trying to use elixir with NEAT or HyperNEAT to try and make a spiking network, then when thats working decently drop some glial interactions I saw in a paper. It would be kinda bad at purely functional stuff, but idk seems fun. The biggest problems are time and having to do a lot of both the evolutionary stuff and the network stuff. But yeah the ubiquity of free datasets does make it easy to train.
importantbrian 3y ago
Not to mention not everyone can be devoted to doing cancer research. Some Drs. and Nurses are necessary to you know actually treat the people who have cancer.

haltIncomplete 3y ago

All we’re doing is engineering new data compression and retrieval techniques: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10668 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10668 Are we sure there’s anything “net new” to find within the same old x86 machines, within the same old axiomatic systems of the past? Math is a few operations applied to carving up stuff and we believe we can do that infinitely in theory. So “all math that abides our axiomatic underpinnings” is valid regardless if we “prove it” or not. Physical space we can exist in, a middle ground of reality we evolved just so to exist in, seems to be finite; I can’t just up and move to Titan or Mars. So our computers are coupled to the same constraints of observation and understanding as us. What about daily life will be upended reconfirming decades old experiment? How is this not living in sunk cost fallacy? When all you have is a hammer… I’m reminded of Einstein’s quote about insanity.

samus 3y ago
If you abstract far enough then yes, everything what we are doing is somehow akin to what we have done before. But that then also applies to what Einstein has done.
aldousd666 3y ago
Einstein didn't say that about insanity, but... systems exist and are consistently described by particular equations at particular scales. Sure we can say everything is quantum mechanics, even classical physics can technically be translated as a series of wave functions that explain the same behaviors we observe, if we could measure it... But it's impractical, and some of the concepts we think of as fundamental to certain scales, like nucleons, didn't exist at others, like equations that describe the energy of empty space. So, it's maybe not quite a fallacy to point out that not every concept we find to be useful, like deep learning inference, encapsulate every rule at every scale that we know about down to the electrons, cogently. Because none of our theories do that, and even if they did, we couldn't measure or process all the things needed to check and see if we're even right. So we use models that differ from each other, but that emerge from each other, but only when we cross certain scale thresholds.