4 ms·

That's true. Let's say in machine learning then.

• JohnHaugeland 14y ago
  Let's not, because it's still wrong on the order of thirty counterexamples. Let's say we'll stop making broad proclamations about the global best in a field we know very little about.
  • robrenaud 14y ago
    Andrew Ng has set many state of the art results on various data sets using similar approaches as the one described in the paper. Here is a reasonably approachable talk he gave about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNOAtZIgIk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmNOAtZIgIk
    • JohnHaugeland 14y ago
      This is a very interesting talk. Thank you for sharing with me. :) In return, I will offer you two interesting non-sequiturs, because I don't have anything topical and a non-sequitur seems like it's worth half what something germane would be. . Bret Victor, "Inventing on Principle." First 5 minutes are terribly boring. Give him a chance; it's 100% worth it. http://vimeo.com/36579366 http://vimeo.com/36579366 . Damian Conway, "Temporally Quaquaversal Virtual Nanomachine." It's as funny as it sounds. http://yow.eventer.com/events/1004/talks/1028 http://yow.eventer.com/events/1004/talks/1028