You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Panorama comments on Open thread 7th september - 13th september - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Elo 06 September 2015 10:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (146)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Panorama 08 September 2015 11:11:58AM *  3 points [-]

Neural Networks, Types, and Functional Programming by Christopher Olah

If we think we’ll probably see deep learning very differently in 30 years, that suggests an interesting question: how are we going to see it? Of course, no one can actually know how we’ll come to understand the field. But it is interesting to speculate.

At present, three narratives are competing to be the way we understand deep learning. There’s the neuroscience narrative, drawing analogies to biology. There’s the representations narrative, centered on transformations of data and the manifold hypothesis. Finally, there’s a probabilistic narrative, which interprets neural networks as finding latent variables. These narratives aren’t mutually exclusive, but they do present very different ways of thinking about deep learning.

This essay extends the representations narrative to a new answer: deep learning studies a connection between optimization and functional programming.

In this view, the representations narrative in deep learning corresponds to type theory in functional programming. It sees deep learning as the junction of two fields we already know to be incredibly rich. What we find, seems so beautiful to me, feels so natural, that the mathematician in me could believe it to be something fundamental about reality.

This is an extremely speculative idea. I am not arguing that it is true. I wish to argue only that it is plausible, that one could imagine deep learning evolving in this direction. To be clear: I am primarily making an aesthetic argument, rather than an argument of fact. I wish to show that this is a natural and elegant idea, encompassing what we presently call deep learning.