I don't consider myself a deep learning expert by any means. There are still a lot more things I don't know than things I know (it's not even close). I've only been working with neural networks since 2009, which is a lot less than many of you.
-
-
Not only that, but when I chat with experts, I'm often surprised by how few of them seem to have a clear mental model of what DL is and how it works. In fact, many big-name researchers often say things that are manifestly untrue and easy to disprove!
Show this thread -
Consider that, not long ago, most AI experts knew for a fact that neural networks were a failed avenue. Consider that, in 2013, most of the top names in computer vision were saying that the nascent success of DL might be just a fluke. And remember the debates about local minima?
Show this thread -
In general, I'm also not a fan of the idea of an "expert". It makes it sound like there's some threshold of knowledge beyond which you know it all, you've made it (perhaps the threshold is when you reach full professorship). I don't think that's how it works.
Show this thread -
If someone tells you they're a top expert, a pioneer, the main thing they're an expert at is playing status games. The same people will probably also try to demean those they feel are in competition with them, because that's how status games work.
Show this thread -
As for me, I'm just someone who's been trying to learn as much as possible (not just about AI). That's how I'd define myself: someone who gets excited about stuff and learns about it. If there's an "expert threshold", I hope I never reach it.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The point is to look past status games
End of 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.