undefined | Better HN

0 pointssillysaurusx4y ago0 comments

I was surprised how grounded he was. It’s pretty much the opposite of a cult.

When you talk with him about a technical idea, you come away feeling that whatever Carmack said, it was plausible. So you start questioning your own assumptions.

I’ve learned to trust his thinking. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think for myself. Quite the opposite; I don’t think anyone else in the AI scene insisted to him that it was crucial to have a loss function.

But in matters like this, where he’s clearly given it more thought than I have (see tweet) and has more experience than I have (see son), I am perfectly content to outsource my thinking to him.

I’ll wager you $500 he’s right. (The problem with such wagers is that it’s hard to define the terms precisely. But, if it were possible to make it precise the way a mathematics formula is precise, I would happily bet you the $500.)

0 comments

nmfisher4y ago

Off-topic, but has he (or anyone else) written more on getting rid of loss functions in ML?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssillysaurusx4y ago0 comments

I was surprised how grounded he was. It’s pretty much the opposite of a cult.

When you talk with him about a technical idea, you come away feeling that whatever Carmack said, it was plausible. So you start questioning your own assumptions.

But in matters like this, where he’s clearly given it more thought than I have (see tweet) and has more experience than I have (see son), I am perfectly content to outsource my thinking to him.