And why would you restrict yourself to the original encoding space and to the Euclidean distance? These are completely arbitrary choices (and completely biased). There's an infinity of possibly encodings of the data you could have chosen, and an infinity of distance functions.https://twitter.com/k_saifullaah/status/1409972975835566081 …
-
Show this thread
-
Perhaps a different culture would always present data on a sphere and would use geodesic distance as the default. I don't know! There should no reason whatsoever to expect an arbitrary encoding and an arbitrary distance to result in an interpolative problem space.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
The correct encoding and distance to use is of course the ones that are natural to the data -- that is to say, the latent manifold of the data. Which *is* an interpolative space for many problems (hence why deep learning models are able to generalize).
3 replies 5 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @fchollet
There is an additional factor: while the function used to describe the data should allow a natural representation of the latent space, the function needs also be efficient to discover, construct, parameterize and represent. (That's why Euclidean representations are ubiquitous.)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes
Absolutely! You can't leverage the latent manifold (or rather, an approximation of it) unless you can represent it (easy part) and learn it (hard part).
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.