News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The most cited deep learning papers. Parent comment

Re:The most cited deep learning papers by aroman on Wednesday February 15, 2017 @10:18PM (#13657564)
The PDP book is the main textbook for a course I'm taking at CMU called... PDP. It's digestible, but man is it weird to see things like "this is an ongoing area of future research" where the future = after 1986.

I find it kind of hard to relate to for that reason — how do I know (besides asking my prof., whose PhD advisor was Hinton, or doing my Googling) what ideas ended up "sticking"? What areas of future research went nowhere vs spawned whole new subfields?

Is there a more modern textbook of the sort I could cross-reference?

edit: here's a link to the course website: http://www.cnbc.cmu.edu/~plaut/IntroPDP/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The most cited deep learning papers by curuinor on Wednesday February 15, 2017 @10:21PM (#13657577)
Nobody really cares about this stuff anymore except weirdoes like me so you might actually be best off asking your prof.

There's also a lot of resurrection that goes on with weird ideas: FastFood cites a paper that cites a paper that cites Lecun's brain damage paper, for example

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The most cited deep learning papers by dahauns on Thursday February 16, 2017 @07:35AM (#13659396)
https://web.stanford.edu/group/pdplab/pdphandbook/
[ Parent | on HN ]