Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Is anyone actually claiming that deep learning achieves true “human-level performance” on any real world open-ended learning task?

No, but the text you quoted doesn't say that.

Human level performance in this context means humans perform no better than some algorithm on some specific dataset.

Incidentally, that's also how you get to claim superhuman performance on classification tasks. Just include some classes that aren't commonly known in your dataset, e.g. dog breeds, plant species, or something like that. ;)



> No, but the text you quoted doesn't say that [deep learning achieves human-level performance

Uh, it says DNNs are indispensable for achieving human level performance. That clearly implies that this level of performance is achievable, despite all evidence to the contrary.


This is a weird interpretation of that sentence. There are lots of fields where human-level performance has been achieved. See Go, for example.


Maybe you need an RNN to help parse that sentence!! :-)

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

etc




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: