[andyjohnson0]

This looks like a well put-together course, and a good way to learn TensorFlow. Keras and TensorFlow are top of my list of technologies to explore in the very near future.

Is anyone here doing Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course [1]? I'm about half-way through and really enjoying it. I'm particularly appreciating that the programming exercises are done in MatLab/Octave, so I feel that I'm really understanding the fundamentals without an API getting in the way, and developing some good intuition. Obviously frameworks are the way to go for production ML work, but I wonder whether ML people here think this bottom-up approach is advisable or could it be misleading when I move on to Keras/TensorFlow/whatever?

[1] https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning

Edit: brevity

[bkanber]

I teach ML and am currently writing my 2nd book on it.

I always advocate learning the fundamentals. Machine learning is math, and neural networks in particular rely on linear algebra and vector calculus. (You can build a NN without using linear algebra directly, likely it'll be slower and besides, the concept still relies on linear algebra).

Frameworks abstract away a lot of the mathiness, which is a net good for society (ie, exposing lots of developers to neural networks), but I consider that a net-negative for the individual developer.

When working on anything but trivial toy problems, you should make sure you understand your problem domain and implementation thoroughly. Is the activation function you've chosen ideal for your problem domain? If not, choose a better one. If no better one exists, you can invent it; but you'll also need to know how to design the backpropagation algorithm for that new activation function (which requires some vector calculus).

Learning the math, as you have, helps you tune your algorithm based on actual knowledge rather than guesswork. I don't think it will be misleading when you move on to a framework. The frameworks are built on the same math.

That said -- if all you're looking to do is play around, then you don't need the math as much.

[andyjohnson0]

Thanks for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply - much appreciated. "ML is maths" is something that I'm getting used to now. I do have some real uses in mind for what I'm learning' both in my job and some side projects, particularly image feature recognition, and I'm looking forward so seeing how it all works in out. Thanks again!

[bkanber]

Image feature recognition is not quite solved but I feel it's very close. It's easier, obviously, if the problem domain is very specific.

In the past, like when I started on ML, the best tip was to make sure to do some edge detection with a few convolutions before feeding an image to a neural network. Now, we have convolutional neural networks that kinda do that for you automatically.

Sometime in between those two dates, someone figured out how to get the convolutions trained via backpropagation -- and they did that by deriving the gradient of an arbitrary convolution (or more likely, looking it up). And that let us put convolutions right in the neural net and have the convolutions automatically train themselves along with the rest of the network. And we observe that the convolutions do things that we would do, like remove unnecessary detail and highlight edges or exaggerate colors.

Anyways; I believe the current state-of-the-art for generic image feature recognition is an ensemble of convolutional neural networks. I believe Google leads the pack on the commercial side so maybe look into how they do it.

[p1esk]

not quite solved is the right way to put it.

If you look at capsules papers, you will realize that convnets are not very good at recognizing transformations (e.g. 3d rotations) of the same object. That's probably why so many training examples are required to make them work well.

Also, if you look at errors made by state of the art models, some of them are obvious (to a human) objects, classified as something entirely different and unrelated. Which leads me to believe that object recognition is not completely solved until a model has some kind of common sense, either build in, or acquired during training.

[mark_l_watson]

Andrew Ng’s older machine learning MOOC class was excellent. I took it once, and took it again a few years later. In the last 8 months I also took his new deep learning set of courses. All really good stuf! (I have been working in the field since the 1980s, but constantly refreshing helps me. And Andrew’s lectures are great fun, he is a teaching artist.

[johnx123-up]

I used to download all ML videos for offline ad hoc watching. But, this crash course videos cannot be downloaded using 'youtube-dl'. Any recommendations?

[abhishekjha]

Where are the videos anyway? I don't see any play button or ay console to play the videos.

[choutos]

Use the time you spend trying to find how to download the videos actually watching them, doing the readings and practising the exercises.

[swyx]

i completed the andrew ng course recently, and felt that the difficulty dropped a lot in the second half of the course (for example, he stops giving homeworks). im hoping for more in his new DL courses

[Choco31415]

I've taken the CNN and RNN (parts 4 and 5) classes of his new DL specialization, and they both area about as rigorous as you wanted. I do have to give a warning though that the last class starts so see some confusing mistakes in the HW. For example, the expected output given is from an outdated HW version.

[swyx]

sigh. well i hope the support is good.