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.

passive_fist comments on Open thread, Nov. 16 - Nov. 22, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: MrMind 16 November 2015 08:03AM

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

Comments (185)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 16 November 2015 02:23:04PM *  9 points [-]

I've been hearing about all this amazing stuff done with recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, random forests, etc. The problem is that it feels like voodoo to me. "I've trained my program to generate convincing looking C code! It gets the indentation right, but the variable use is a bit off. Isn't that cool?" I'm not sure, it sounds like you don't understand what your program is doing. That's pretty much why I'm not studying machine learning right now. What do you think?

Comment author: passive_fist 16 November 2015 08:55:46PM 8 points [-]

I did my PhD thesis on a machine learning problem. I initially used deep learning but after a while I became frustrated with how opaque it was so I switched to using a graphical model where I had explicitly defined the variables and their statistical relationships. My new model worked but it required several months of trying out different models and tweaking parameters, not to mention a whole lot of programming things from scratch. Deep learning is opaque but it has the advantage that you can get good results rapidly without thinking a lot about the problem. That's probably the main reason that it's used.