HN user
The Princeton University researchers behind the paper found that there's a less than 1 percent probability that the changes occurred naturally.
"So you're telling me there is still a chance" - Dumb & Dumber
The days are long, but the years are short
Is it dangerous for human ? I'm thinking like the ozone hole we used to have in South America in the past.
Rumor is that they are also going to cancel their launch in Brazil. I think they are just re-focusing and trying to make money instead of burning it. Launching in a new market is always expensive.
I think you could take some ideas from the Foundation Series of Asimov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series)
I used it 2 times in Brazil (I think their first market) and really enjoy the whole process. I used it to go to the airport. Friday night with traffic, you need almost 2 hours to reach the airport from my home. Using that I could do it in 45mn door to door. (20mn ride to the helipad, 10mn wait, 15mn ride) You can also enjoy the view which is a big plus.
Because otherwise people will just submit random picture for the lulz
The most relevant part of the article:
David Duvenaud, an assistant professor in the same department as Hinton at the University of Toronto, says deep learning has been somewhat like engineering before physics. “Someone writes a paper and says, ‘I made this bridge and it stood up!’ Another guy has a paper: ‘I made this bridge and it fell down—but then I added pillars, and then it stayed up.’ Then pillars are a hot new thing. Someone comes up with arches, and it’s like, ‘Arches are great!’” With physics, he says, “you can actually understand what’s going to work and why.” Only recently, he says, have we begun to move into that phase of actual understanding with artificial intelligence.
Hinton himself says, “Most conferences consist of making minor variations … as opposed to thinking hard and saying, ‘What is it about what we’re doing now that’s really deficient? What does it have difficulty with? Let’s focus on that.’”
I hope they are thinking of the shortcomings of doing that: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg7w4x/canada-hub...
Well they want to improve their model now: https://www.kaggle.com/c/zillow-prize-1
Also, what is SOTA? State Of The Art
It's just that you are not following closely what companies in Japan are doing. As a reminder Shaft company bought by Google was way better than the robot from Boston Dynamics during the Darpa Challenge: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/schaft...
I'm not complaining about how primitive it is. I'm complaining about using buzzword when at the end it is just a random network disguised in a brain structure (and I'm just talking about geometry).
There is nothing to do better because better is doing real simulation and we are far from it. https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/
github page: https://github.com/nxxcxx/Neural-Network
Is it based on anything or just some random connection and nice visualization (which then isn't really impressive)