If you have a convnet and you train its weights with ADMM, is that no longer deep learning? Is an HMAX model (with learned features) not deep learning? Is a deep neural network trained greedily layer-by-layer not deep learning? I say they're all deep learning.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Deep learning refers to an approach to representation learning where your model is a chain of modules (typically a stack / pyramid, hence the notion of depth), each of which could serve as a standalone feature extractor if trained as such. That's also how I define it in my book.pic.twitter.com/9FWbLRnFen
Show this thread -
This stands in contrast to: 1) Things that are not representation learning (e.g. manual feature engineering like SIFT, symbolic AI, etc.) 2) "Shallow learning", where there is a single feature extraction layer.
Show this thread -
It does not prescribe a specific learning mechanism (e.g. backprop) or a specific use case (e.g. supervised learning or RL), and it does not require end-to-end joint learning (as opposed to greedy learning). It's the *what* (nature and structure), not the *how*.
Show this thread -
This definition draws a clear boundary: some things are DL, some things aren't. The 2019 flavors of DNNs are DL, of course. So are DNNs trained with backprop alternatives like ES, ADMM, or virtual gradients. Genetic programming is not DL. Quicksort is not DL. Nor is SVM.
Show this thread -
A single Dense layer is not DL. But a Dense stack is.l DL. K-means is not DL. But stacking k-means feature extractors is DL. When in 2011-12 I was doing stacked matrix factorization over matrices of pairwise mutual information of locations in video data, that was deep learning.
Show this thread -
Programs typically written by human engineers are not DL. Parametrizing such programs to learn a few constants automatically is still not DL. You need to be doing representation learning with a chain of feature extractors.
Show this thread -
By definition, deep learning is a gradual, incremental way to extract representations from data. In its modern incarnation, it's even at least C1 continuous (more typically C inf). That last part isn't essential, but *incrementality* is intrinsic to DL.
Show this thread -
So DL is a fundamentally different beast from symbol manipulation and regular programming, which is fundamentally discrete, flow-centric, and doesn't usually involve intermediate data representations. You could do symbol manipulation with DL, but it involves lots of extra steps.
Show this thread -
These are two entirely different takes on data manipulation. Deep learning isn't just end-to-end gradient descent, but not every program is deep learning either. In fact, deep learning models only represents a tiny, tiny slice of program space. It can't hurt to look beyond it.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.