|
|
|
|
|
|
by nabla9
3135 days ago
|
|
|
/user/geoffhinton 1 year ago > Over the last three years at Google I have put a huge amount of work into trying to get an impressive result with capsule-based neural networks. I haven't yet succeeded. That's the problem with basic research. There is no guarantee that ideas will work even if they seem very promising. Probably the best results so far are in Tijmen Tieleman's PhD thesis. But it took 17 years after Terry Sejnowski and I invented the Boltzmann machine learning algorithm before I found a version of it that worked efficiently. If you really believe in an idea you just have to keep trying. https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/4w6tsv/ama... Most of the deep learning papers published are just exploring and incrementally building upon the ideas 'Canadian Mafia' (Hinton, LeCun and Bengio) discovered years ago. At some point this 'idea space' is explored and understood and we hit the wall just like before. Let's hope that people doing basic research can find new breakthroughs in less than 17 years. |
|
|
To me, the capsule concept seems reasonable, and I have my personal opinion about its strengths and flaws. But my opinion hardly matters.
I expect peer reviewers from NIPS to have a better understanding that I have, and I trust them to filter and clean this idea, instead of trusting the research just because of the name that signs the paper.
To me, although it has its flaws, the _double-blind_ _peer-reviewed_ processes is important.