[biocomputation]

I actually don't think this is a good explanation at all. I'm not saying it's badly written, just that it's not a good explanation for the stated purpose (serving as an intuitive explanation).

To this point, the article is certainly NOT intuitive if you don't already understand image convolution. The explanation is also very long and rambling. While I understand the author has made an effort, I don't think the article really presents the subject matter in a new way: I can learn all of this elsewhere. This is a common problem when people write about complex subject matter without fully understanding the knowledge gap between teacher and audience.

If I were the author, I might try to read up on technical communication and spend some time figuring out how to correctly simply something. As it stands, this article using the typical strategy of information hiding to simplify the subject matter. The problem is that information hiding doesn't doesn't work very well unless it is expertly done. I do like the animation, but again, it only serves to show how image convolution works, and doesn't actually teach us anything about a CNN.

I would suggest the author break the document into three separate sections, the first being very simple (maybe start with the part that says 'images are just matrices') and then add more details in each section. The final section would have a lot of detail. That way you counteract the information blindness that occurs from simplification by providing the information later.

Otherwise, this article is really more of a data dump than an intuitive explanation, and since it doesn't really teach us anything we can't learn elsewhere, I don't see what it contributes.

A cleaner explanation, expertly prepared, could really elevate the effort that went into this.

[ardit33]

Jesus, chill. I am reading it, (and I know nothing about CNN's), and learning about what do I need to read first about them. The author makes it clear on few things that you need to read before hand.

I think it is a good article/blog post, (thanks dude, whoever you are that wrote it).

You on the other hand didn't give any better alternatives on your "rant".

[biocomputation]

The comments are for discussing HN submissions. As written, the article is yet another data dump on CNNs. There are a lot of these on the web already, and I don't think this explanation is better than what already exists.

I stand by my comments.

> You on the other hand didn't give any better alternatives on your "rant".

I don't have to provide better alternatives. Note that my response did provide suggestions on how to improve the article.

[banachtarski]

It's immensely clear...

[mlevental]

man i came back after 2 days just to comment on this: you're high. the article is crystal clear and intuitive. he covers each layer's design, purpose, and effect in intuitive terms.

you on the other hand haven't said literally anything except vaguely criticized. look i'll show you how it's done:

>The explanation is also very long and rambling. While I understand the author has made an effort, I don't think the article really presents the subject matter in a new way: I can learn all of this elsewhere. This is a common problem when people write about complex subject matter without fully understanding the knowledge gap between teacher and audience.

these two sentences have nothing to do with each other: that the explanation isn't novel has nothing to do with elided gaps between expositors and readers (wherein usually the exposition is too complex, not too simple as you've confused it).

>If I were the author, I might try to read up on technical communication and spend some time figuring out how to correctly simply something.

vague. read from where? which chapters? simplify which parts?

>I do like the animation, but again, it only serves to show how image convolution works, and doesn't actually teach us anything about a CNN.

it's like you think that one animation should explain the entire CNN. did you actually read the post? that image explain convolutions and is the absolute standard explanation for convolving with a filter/kernel.

>I would suggest the author break the document into three separate sections

better in that at least it's concrete advice. i suggest you include more points like this.

>images are just matrices

are you suggesting the author goes into CCDs? ADCs? now that would be a rambling post.

>That way you counteract the information blindness that occurs from simplification by providing the information later.

that's terrible advice. detail should be evenly distributed through the article. look at any journal article: except for the appendices all of the meat is in the body not in the conclusion.

>Otherwise, this article is really more of a data dump than an intuitive explanation,

a data dump would be just code. this is in fact an intuitive explanation that uses the classification of dogs/cats/boats/bird as the framework, so there's a structure, terms are defined, there's context (lenet etc.), and there are references.

>and since it doesn't really teach us anything we can't learn elsewhere, I don't see what it contributes.

blog articles don't need to be novel.