The second point -- training data density -- is equally important. You will naturally only be able to train on a very space sampling *of the encoding space*, but you need to *densely cover the latent space*.
-
Show this thread
-
It's only with a sufficiently dense sampling of the latent manifold that it becomes possible to make sense of new inputs by interpolating between past training inputs without having to leverage additional priors.pic.twitter.com/SmRvEN2NXS
3 replies 15 retweets 109 likesShow this thread -
The practical implication is that the best way to improve a deep learning model is to get more data or better data (overly noisy / inaccurate data will hurt generalization). A denser coverage of the latent manifold leads a model that generalizes better.
3 replies 8 retweets 78 likesShow this thread -
This is why *data augmentation techniques* like exposing a model to variations in image brightness or rotation angle is an extremely effective way to improve test-time performance. Data augmentation is all about densifying your latent space coverage (by leveraging visual priors).
1 reply 7 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
In conclusion: the only things you'll find in a DL model is what you put into it: the priors encoded in its architecture and the data it was trained on. DL models are not magic. They're big curves that fit their training samples, with some constraints on their structure.
13 replies 28 retweets 180 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @fchollet
I saw you were discussing this with Yoshua Bengio at the AGI conference, to which he replied that the missing piece is getting rid of the independence assumption in the latent space by assuming some additional 'modularity' prior. Do you have any comments on this?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mlpeschl
Yoshua is right! The more priors you inject the less data you need to obtain a curve that approximates the latent manifold. Strong & accurate priors enable you to "see" further given the stepping stones (data points) you're given.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
The entire subfields of DL architecture and data augmentation are about leveraging new/more priors in this way. And such priors are often about modularity! This is why we use "layers" or "convolutions" in DL instead of an amorphous soup of parameters.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @fchollet
Makes sense. But I suppose the manifold hypothesis persists regardless of the priors we use? Then, end to end DL will never truly get us to the 'system 2' type of capabilities. I guess the uncertainty is in whether we can find good priors to get enough ood generalization?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mlpeschl
It's complicated -- it's basically a fundamental question about the structure of information in the universe. DL only works with spaces where the manifold hypothesis applies (regardless of priors). The question is how far it really extends.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
I really believe that there are two poles within the space of all problems: discrete and continuous, with a swampy spectrum in-between. Perception (e.g. natural images) is very continuous. Prime numbers, very discrete. Most problems are somewhere along the spectrum.
-
-
While DL might be able to attack some mostly-discrete problems with continuous embedding space (e.g. language), it seems to be fundamentally misfit for the task. We need to also leverage discrete search to get full coverage of the problem spectrum. This was the topic of my talk.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. 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.