News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Nvidia announces RTX 2000 GPU series with ‘6x more perfor... by sgt101 on Monday August 20, 2018 @04:08PM (#17803460)
We used to call this model fishing and regard models that came from places that did it with fear and suspicion (due to sudden failure and poor performance in production)

What has changed that people think this is a wise approach?

Re:Nvidia announces RTX 2000 GPU series with ‘6x more perfor... by matt4077 on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @08:39AM (#17808999)
They don't suddenly fail any more, and performance in production is fine... This is a rather empirical science right now.

If forced to speculate, I'd say far larger datasets are part of the answer. If you can afford to hold back 30%+ of your data for (multi-tranche) verification the difference between testing and production becomes a problem for the philosophers.

Re:Nvidia announces RTX 2000 GPU series with ‘6x more perfor... by sgt101 on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @05:55AM (#17817556)
Hmm this isn't my experience. My experience is that highly complex models tend to reflect accurately the ground truth in the current dataset, but not the domain theory that generated it, so when things change (like, prevailing weather conditions, political alignments, interest rates, data usage) which move the distribution (but not the domain theory) they do fail. The question is : are you trading poorer compression for more fidelity or are you learning the system that generates the data?
Re:Nvidia announces RTX 2000 GPU series with ‘6x more perfor... by bitL on Monday August 20, 2018 @04:34PM (#17803710)
AutoML and automated architecture/hyperparameter search used by FAANG, producing things like AmoebaNet-D, that beat all previous state-of-art results.