This is perhaps why a person with an experimental science PhD may be more capable than a computer science PhD in data science type jobs. The conventional computer science curriculum does not teach what needs to be taught about how models are created about the physical world.
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
If your goal is to be an expert in theoretical computer science (CS), then a PhD is important. However, an expert in deep learning requires a different set (but overlapping) of knowledge from that found in CS. An analogy is the difference between GOFAI and connectionism.
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
The ideas of connectionism are very different from the abstractions that come from GOFAI. To understand these, you have to go elsewhere: physics, biology, ecology, economics, psychology, neuroscience etc. It's not found in mathermatical programming.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
To conclude, a deep learning PhD who cannot speak coherently about other fields like biology or physics has questionable foundations. Unfortunately, most CS curriculums don't fit in the time to understand adjacent fields.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 2 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
It's also very important to realize that Deep Learning requires a ton of plumbing (i.e. technology). Many times, a data scientist doesn't have the requisite understanding of the technology underneath their tools. One should thus never trust a data scientist to build software!
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
I have both a physics and a computer science background. But when I began to study deep learning, I became aware of my knowledge deficiency. This required me to hit the books hard studying evolution, biology, neuroscience, and psychology.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 4 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
The first principle that every deep learning researcher should come to grips with is that deep learning is more biological than it is mathematical. To formalize this one should study the complexity science literature.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 7 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
One hint of why this is true is that Deep Learning architectures are "grown" and not "programmed" (in the classical sense).
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 3 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Furthermore, if you take the myopic viewpoint of mathematical programming then one could argue that Deep Learning is nothing but credit assignment using gradient descent. That's a very impoverished viewpoint!
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
The only existing general framework that stitches together ideas from biology and computer science can be found in the complexity sciences. So it is indeed astounding that many DL researcher are ignorant of this field.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit
DL research speaking from the viewpoint of either Bayesian statistics or mathematical programming simply do not speak in the same conceptual framework as those in the complexity sciences. Their ignorance is revealed by the language that they use to describe DL.
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.