In a phrase: Worse Is Better

My concern with something like this is content marketing or other forms of surreptitious advertising.

Will you clearly indicate “boosted” authors/publishers/pieces?

We don’t boost any authors/publishers/pieces. We don’t have any specific plan to monetize right now, but many AI-based products seem to work well as paid subscriptions vs using an advertising model.

>> We don’t have any specific plan to monetize right now

YC has changed. It's like we're back in the late 90's!

> Corporations and governments are made of actual people.

Hand-waving away the complex incentives these superhuman structures follow & impose.

Yeah, it's on codeberg https://codeberg.org/uzu/strudel

Glad we agree that the “builder” without craft is just looking for the nearest exit.

In the United States, the working poor are considered deserving of their burdens in an immutable, moralizing, Calvinist way. “They make bad choices.” “They have bad culture.” “They have bad genes.”

Today’s public benchmarks are yesterday’s training data.

I cannot understand this prideful resentment of theory common among self-described practitioners.

Even if existing theory is inadequate, would an operating theory not be beneficial?

Or is the mystique combined with guess&check drudgery job security?

If there were theory that led to directly useful results (like, telling you the right hyperparameters to use for your data in a simple way, or giving you a new kind of regularization that you can drop in to dramatically improve learning) then deep learning practitioners would love it. As it currently stands, such theories don't really exist.

This is way too rigorous. You can absolutely have theories that lead to useful results even if they aren't as predictive as you describe. Theory of evolution for an obvious counterpoint.

Useful theories only come to exist because someone started by saying they must exist and then spent years or lifetimes discovering them.

There are strong incentives to leave theory as technical debt and keep charging forward. I don't think it's resentment of theory, everyone would love a theory if one were available but very few are willing to forgoe the near term rewards to pursue theory. Also it's really hard.

There are many reasons to believe a theory may not be forthcoming, or that if it is available may not be useful.

For instance, we do not have consensus on what a theory should accomplish - should it provide convergence bounds/capability bounds? Should it predict optimal parameter counts/shapes? Should it allow more efficient calculation of optimal weights? Does it need to do these tasks in linear time?

Even materials science in metals is still cycling through theoretical models after thousands of years of making steel and other alloys.

Many mathematicians are (rightly, IMO) allergic to assertions that certain branches are not useful (explicit in OP) and especially so if they are dismissive of attempts to understand complicated real world phenomema (implicit in OP, if you ask me).

Who is proud? What you are seeing in some cases is eye rolling. And it's fair eye rolling.

There is an enormous amount of theory used in the various parts of building models, there just isn't an overarching theory at the very most convenient level of abstraction.

It almost has to be this way. If there was some neat theory, people would use it and build even more complex things on top of it in an experimental way and then so on.

> If you like it or it makes you feel something, that's all that matters.

You’re right!

> Even jazz uses 6-2-5-1's over and over.

You’re not even wrong! I wonder if jazz does anything else besides that?

A major floodplain in Michigan has a similar problem with dioxin contamination.

https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Fold...