I skimmed the paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.0460...
and found some parts very confusing. E.g. in Fig. 1a, sulfur hydride seems to have critical temperature around 70K at 177GPa, and in Fig. 1b, it seems to have critical temperature of 185K at the same pressure. And the "measurements" in Fig. 4 don't look like measurements, they look like data generated using a mathematical function.
Dan
Could you comment on some of the claims in the abstract?
1. Deep learning is a broad set of techniques that uses multiple layers of representation...
Agreed- that's what "deep" implies.
Is multi-scale analysis a primary component of 'deep learning'?
This may be true in vision, but not in general (e.g. in linguistics tasks and in speech, there is usually not a natural notion of scale).
2. "relatively little is understood theoretically about why these techniques are so successful at feature learning and compression.
True... deep learning methods are not very easy to analyze (personally I am skeptical that there is much point in trying very hard to analyze them).
"We construct an exact mapping from the variational renormalization group..."
Is this not new, not correct, or is this simply not of much use to deep learning?
I think the closest is to say it's not of much use. I didn't read the paper super carefully (and I'm not a physicist so am not familiar with the renormalization group), but I imagine the analogy is not very close at all and only applies in specific cases, e.g. in convolutional nets or something like that.
The renormalization group theory is so general and powerful, it's had profound impacts on many areas of theoretical and mathematical physics. Do you think this can't or won't impact the field of deep learning? If deep learning has multi-scale analysis at its heart, it appears on the surface that RG should be a good treatment. Have there been attempts to use RG for deep learning aside from the present work?
If the connection is real, it would seem to suggest that perhaps deep learning may have something to offer physics, if it really is "employing a generalized RG-like scheme." Do you have any comment on this?
I haven't read the paper in detail but I just don't think it's plausible that there is a very interesting connection as they are such different things.
To pick a random example, imagine you are a botanist and someone told you there is a connection between hydroelectric dams and oranges. Even if there is a connection, it's probably not something that is going to help you very much, and you probably wouldn't be so excited to read the paper explaining the purported connection.
Islam does not really mean peace, it means submission (in Arabic). Salam, from the same Arabic root, means peace.
The statement that "Islam means peace" is not something that all Muslims would agree with, it's simply something that people say when being politically correct about Islam. It's silly of course, when it's just about the least peaceful religion imaginable.
Actual deep learning scientist here (e.g. see my publications page here.)
This article is way overblown. This is not the kind of paper that is likely to attract significant attention in the deep learning community.
And the person who they got to say it was important, Ilya Nemenman, is not someone I have heard of.
When Ruthie says come see her
In her honky-tonk lagoon
Where I can watch her waltz for free
’Neath her Panamanian moon
An’ I say, “Aw come on now
You must know about my debutante”
An’ she says, “Your debutante just knows what you need
But I know what you want”
It's not really correct to say "breast tissue". Chickens don't have mammary glands, so they have no breast tissue as such. What I imagine they used is the pectoral muscle of the chicken, known for culinary purposes as "chicken breast".
1) By the time you learn it, it won't be hot anymore.
2) It's all about experience. Don't take my word for it, look at the job ads. Learn something all you want, if you don't have five years experience in it, your knowledge is useless.
3) These articles about what's "hot" are just standard corporate propaganda. IT employers always want people chasing their tails, studying everything, just so they have a larger labor pool.
4) Don't get constantly distracted trying to learn what is supposedly "hot" at the moment, just learn anything useful, and be very good at it. Being very good at anything useful is far more valuable than a superficial knowledge of the latest fad.
5) These articles don't tell you anything more than they tell everybody else in the world. Learning whatever is not going to give you any competitive advantage.
All JMHO, of course.
Disclosure: I worked in IT for over 30 years. I have held several jobs, at several companies. I have been through the hiring process a lot.
Your statement is not relevant here because Matlab is not hot. scipy/numpy are hot, Matlab is old.
I work as a research scientist in a top university doing heavy data-processing (however I personally maintain my own C++ wrapper of BLAS so I don't rely on other people's wrapper code).
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but he has a point here.
Microsoft is a multinational corporation - albeit one that started in the US - and they have the perfect right to locate their operations wherever suits them. Immigration policies are a valid reason to make these decisions. I don't understand why American think it's their automatic right for all activities of companies like this to be located on their soil.
Mod me flamebait, but I am with Microsoft on this one.
As mentioned in their press release at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us..., Samsung agreed that
"Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform".
I don't know how Samsung thinks it can use Microsoft products without paying for them. I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same.
the patent seems to talk in terms of surfaces for heat transfer, and does not mention anything about turbulence. When he first mentioned to me that he was working on it, I conjectured that it was vanes or ribs of some kind, and he told me that it was more complicated than that and had to do with the interaction with turbulence (I forget whether to increase it or decrease it). However, nothing like that seems to be reflected in the patent. I'll ask him to respond here on Slashdot if he can.
I read TFA, and unfortunately the research is very weak. They did not do a proper randomized study, they merely trained a classifier to figure out how good they thought a post was, and then divided up posts into pairs where their classifier thought they were the same but the feedback was different. They assume that their classifier is accurate, i.e. really reflects the goodness of a post. The rest of their research follows from this assumption.
If it had been a proper randomized study (i.e. roll a dice and up/down vote posts) I could have believed it.
What I wonder is-- how did the Syrians get hold of a zero-day vulnerability in Flash? I doubt they found it themselves. Did they buy it, or did the Russians give it to them?
This is not an argument about pricing mechanisms for Internet providers; I think we all agree that charging people more for more data is reasonable. The issue is extorting people like Netflix just because they can.
Their statement seems to imply that Google Docs supports OOXML but not ODF, but the reverse is true: it supports ODF but not OOXML. I just tried the file->download as link on a document there, and one of the options is "Open Document Format (.odt)" but there is no OOXML option.
Slashdot Mirror
The article is full of shit.
It claims that Gates's blog post here here supports LENR, but it does no such thing (although some people in the comments section do mention it).
I skimmed the paper at
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.0460...
and found some parts very confusing. E.g. in Fig. 1a, sulfur hydride seems to have critical temperature around 70K at 177GPa, and in Fig. 1b, it seems to have critical temperature of 185K at the same pressure. And the "measurements" in Fig. 4 don't look like measurements, they look like data generated using a mathematical function. Dan
Could you comment on some of the claims in the abstract?
1. Deep learning is a broad set of techniques that uses multiple layers of representation...
Agreed- that's what "deep" implies.
Is multi-scale analysis a primary component of 'deep learning'?
This may be true in vision, but not in general (e.g. in linguistics tasks and in speech, there is usually not a natural notion of scale).
2. "relatively little is understood theoretically about why these techniques are so successful at feature learning and compression.
True... deep learning methods are not very easy to analyze (personally I am skeptical that there is much point in trying very hard to analyze them).
"We construct an exact mapping from the variational renormalization group..." Is this not new, not correct, or is this simply not of much use to deep learning?
I think the closest is to say it's not of much use. I didn't read the paper super carefully (and I'm not a physicist so am not familiar with the renormalization group), but I imagine the analogy is not very close at all and only applies in specific cases, e.g. in convolutional nets or something like that.
The renormalization group theory is so general and powerful, it's had profound impacts on many areas of theoretical and mathematical physics. Do you think this can't or won't impact the field of deep learning? If deep learning has multi-scale analysis at its heart, it appears on the surface that RG should be a good treatment. Have there been attempts to use RG for deep learning aside from the present work?
If the connection is real, it would seem to suggest that perhaps deep learning may have something to offer physics, if it really is "employing a generalized RG-like scheme." Do you have any comment on this?
I haven't read the paper in detail but I just don't think it's plausible that there is a very interesting connection as they are such different things.
To pick a random example, imagine you are a botanist and someone told you there is a connection between hydroelectric dams and oranges. Even if there is a connection, it's probably not something that is going to help you very much, and you probably wouldn't be so excited to read the paper explaining the purported connection.
Islam does not really mean peace, it means submission (in Arabic). Salam, from the same Arabic root, means peace. The statement that "Islam means peace" is not something that all Muslims would agree with, it's simply something that people say when being politically correct about Islam. It's silly of course, when it's just about the least peaceful religion imaginable.
This article is way overblown. This is not the kind of paper that is likely to attract significant attention in the deep learning community. And the person who they got to say it was important, Ilya Nemenman, is not someone I have heard of.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
In her honky-tonk lagoon
Where I can watch her waltz for free
’Neath her Panamanian moon
An’ I say, “Aw come on now
You must know about my debutante”
An’ she says, “Your debutante just knows what you need
But I know what you want”
Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/son...
It's not really correct to say "breast tissue". Chickens don't have mammary glands, so they have no breast tissue as such. What I imagine they used is the pectoral muscle of the chicken, known for culinary purposes as "chicken breast".
Pics or it didn't happen.
Oh. I use text mode emacs normally and tty settings disallow it.
The only important feature emacs lacks in my opinion, is the ability to run emacs within a sub-window of emacs.
1) By the time you learn it, it won't be hot anymore.
2) It's all about experience. Don't take my word for it, look at the job ads. Learn something all you want, if you don't have five years experience in it, your knowledge is useless.
3) These articles about what's "hot" are just standard corporate propaganda. IT employers always want people chasing their tails, studying everything, just so they have a larger labor pool.
4) Don't get constantly distracted trying to learn what is supposedly "hot" at the moment, just learn anything useful, and be very good at it. Being very good at anything useful is far more valuable than a superficial knowledge of the latest fad.
5) These articles don't tell you anything more than they tell everybody else in the world. Learning whatever is not going to give you any competitive advantage.
All JMHO, of course.
Disclosure: I worked in IT for over 30 years. I have held several jobs, at several companies. I have been through the hiring process a lot.
Your statement is not relevant here because Matlab is not hot. scipy/numpy are hot, Matlab is old. I work as a research scientist in a top university doing heavy data-processing (however I personally maintain my own C++ wrapper of BLAS so I don't rely on other people's wrapper code).
I've never attempted to use Ubuntu since.
Microsoft is a multinational corporation - albeit one that started in the US - and they have the perfect right to locate their operations wherever suits them. Immigration policies are a valid reason to make these decisions. I don't understand why American think it's their automatic right for all activities of companies like this to be located on their soil.
It's true, my comments envisaged conventional farming, not the methods the Israelis use with poly-tunnels. So in the long run, your point is true.
Would be nice for deserts to be un-desertified, but I'm not sure that can be done cost effectively just yet.
Dan
It's not physical space that limits populations, but the availability of resources such as food and water.
I don't know how Samsung thinks it can use Microsoft products without paying for them. I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same.
http://patentscope.wipo.int/se...
the patent seems to talk in terms of surfaces for heat transfer, and does not mention anything about turbulence. When he first mentioned to me that he was working on it, I conjectured that it was vanes or ribs of some kind, and he told me that it was more complicated than that and had to do with the interaction with turbulence (I forget whether to increase it or decrease it). However, nothing like that seems to be reflected in the patent. I'll ask him to respond here on Slashdot if he can.
Dr. Povey mentioned to me that turbulence had something to do with how it works. [He's my brother.]
If it had been a proper randomized study (i.e. roll a dice and up/down vote posts) I could have believed it.
What I wonder is-- how did the Syrians get hold of a zero-day vulnerability in Flash? I doubt they found it themselves. Did they buy it, or did the Russians give it to them?
I'm wishing there was a "+1 troll" option for moderation.
This is not an argument about pricing mechanisms for Internet providers; I think we all agree that charging people more for more data is reasonable. The issue is extorting people like Netflix just because they can.
Does anyone know if they are working on ... a pleasure model?
Their statement seems to imply that Google Docs supports OOXML but not ODF, but the reverse is true: it supports ODF but not OOXML. I just tried the file->download as link on a document there, and one of the options is "Open Document Format (.odt)" but there is no OOXML option.