Statements like "X is can be used to represent any program/function, therefore it is all we are every going to need" are pretty silly.
Show this thread
-
First of all, almost any program-representation medium (except particularly trivial ones) can be used to represent any program, so that property doesn't tell you anything about the merits and limitations of a particular approach.
Show this thread
Second, it is not relevant whether a program *can be represented* (that's almost always true), one care whether a program *can be developed* (not just in theory, but in practice) using a particular approach.
-
-
So statements like "NNs are universal approximators (or, 'there are Turing-complete RNN architectures'), therefore DL has no limits" is like saying "you can use a pen & some paper to produce the complete works of Shakespeare". Technically true, but pretty silly at the same time.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.