|
|
|
|
|
by snovv_crash
137 days ago
|
|
Yes, that's basically the point. You get 'free' continuous learning just by throwing the new data into the pool. Needing an explicit training step is a weakness that makes CL hard to make work for many other approaches. For any practical application KNN will need some kind of accelerated search structure (eg Kd-tree for < ~7 dimensions) which then requires support for dynamic insertions. But this is an engineering problem, not a data science problem, it works and is practical. For example this has been used by the top systems in Robocode for 15+ years at this point, it's just academia that doesn't find this approach novel enough to bother pursuing. |
|
On the other hand, not having an explicit training step is a huge weakness of KNN.
Training-based methods scale better because the storage and runtime requirements are independent of dataset size. You can compress 100TB of training data down into a 70GB LLM.
A KNN on the same data would require keeping around the full 100TB, and it would be intractably slow.