5 ms·
It's actually really fascinating that there isn't a scientific theory of deep learning, especially as it's a product of human engineering as opposed to e.g. bio
by A_D_E_P_T 6mo ago
It's actually really fascinating that there isn't a scientific theory of deep learning, especially as it's a product of human engineering as opposed to e.g. biology or particle physics.
- hodgehog11 6mo agoThere are very good reasons why it took this long, but can be summed up as: everyone was looking in the wrong place. Deep learning breaks a hundred years of statistical intuition, and you don't move a ship that large quickly.
- slashdave 6mo agoThere is, but it is fractured. I would equate this effort as more of a standardization of terms and language.
- antonvs 6mo agoCalling it “a product of human engineering” is misleading. Deep learning exploits principles we don’t fully understand. We didn’t engineer those principles. It’s not fundamentally any different than particle physics or biology, which are both similarly consequences of rules that we didn’t invent and can’t control.
- seydor 6mo agoWell there are some fundamentals such as universal approximation. And we may find that biology also exploits structures like deep nets