Using an innocuous encoding of a word is a form of encryption. People who expect to be under surveillance agree on a set of code words to denote illegal things. Though hard, there are multiple ways to semi-automatically…
Thanks for elaborating. > At some point the machine fact-checking relies on data input by humans. But so does nearly every ML model? In the case of a spell checker it is using corpora made by humans. If the majority of…
Cool. I knew of previous work [1], but not the recent paper you posted. Thanks. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6056 "Predicting Deeper into the Future of Semantic Segmentation"
AI hype journalists will find something to write about, regardless of the industry making their research accessible to the wider public. Markov-chain generators have been around for a while, and have been used to throw…
http://www.parrotanalytics.com/pacific-asia-knowledge-discov...
Beating the state-of-the-art with one-shot learning is not common. Transfer learning for NLP is also quite unchartered. Also the technique is quite novel: This is not pre-trained nets on labeled data, it is an…
It is possible to leak information, but then you are doing it wrong. Don't use only a single out of time test set to do parameter or model selection, keep an out of time holdout set. But really, this is the bare basic…
Is a mistake still a mistake when it is a profitable action? If fitting to human irrationality increases generalization performance, then it does not matter if the "machines seem destined to repeat our mistakes", it is…
This implies the time machine can go only one way. Taking information from the future back in time is worth more than taking information from the current to the future. We do the latter all the time, we do not need a…
Then look at backtesting. The evaluation data set is out of time, meaning the better than random performance is on unseen future data. The algorithm was implemented, not merely a suggestion.
> If it's so easy why not to identify directly which stocks to invest in? It is not easy. Both to set-up, and the problem itself (you won't get a very high accuracy, but you will get much better than random guessing). >…
Bagel = Kay-gel Haggle = Kah-gl I wonder about your dialect, if for you, "bagel" rhymes with "gaggle".
Using an innocuous encoding of a word is a form of encryption. People who expect to be under surveillance agree on a set of code words to denote illegal things. Though hard, there are multiple ways to semi-automatically…
Thanks for elaborating. > At some point the machine fact-checking relies on data input by humans. But so does nearly every ML model? In the case of a spell checker it is using corpora made by humans. If the majority of…
Cool. I knew of previous work [1], but not the recent paper you posted. Thanks. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6056 "Predicting Deeper into the Future of Semantic Segmentation"
AI hype journalists will find something to write about, regardless of the industry making their research accessible to the wider public. Markov-chain generators have been around for a while, and have been used to throw…
http://www.parrotanalytics.com/pacific-asia-knowledge-discov...
Beating the state-of-the-art with one-shot learning is not common. Transfer learning for NLP is also quite unchartered. Also the technique is quite novel: This is not pre-trained nets on labeled data, it is an…
It is possible to leak information, but then you are doing it wrong. Don't use only a single out of time test set to do parameter or model selection, keep an out of time holdout set. But really, this is the bare basic…
Is a mistake still a mistake when it is a profitable action? If fitting to human irrationality increases generalization performance, then it does not matter if the "machines seem destined to repeat our mistakes", it is…
This implies the time machine can go only one way. Taking information from the future back in time is worth more than taking information from the current to the future. We do the latter all the time, we do not need a…
Then look at backtesting. The evaluation data set is out of time, meaning the better than random performance is on unseen future data. The algorithm was implemented, not merely a suggestion.
> If it's so easy why not to identify directly which stocks to invest in? It is not easy. Both to set-up, and the problem itself (you won't get a very high accuracy, but you will get much better than random guessing). >…
Bagel = Kay-gel Haggle = Kah-gl I wonder about your dialect, if for you, "bagel" rhymes with "gaggle".