snrji

I see, thanks for your comment.

I see, but you could still wrap all other cases in some predefined functions or higher level primitives, and just have an "unsafe" mode for unrestricted recursion. It could even be treated as a side effect.

This reminds of an old idea of a friend of mine, who said that pure, unrestricted recursion (this applies to iteration as well) is like goto: a primitive too powerful and not abstract enough that should not be directly exposed to the programmer in a high level language. This post shows that there's an additional reason for avoiding explicit recursion when possible: performance. Sure, you can define any function by using recursion, but the compiler won't be smart enough to parallelize it.

Does anyone know if a language with only high order functions like map, reduce and others could be Turing complete? Probably 80-90% of cases would fit in the schema of some predefined functions like scanl. My intuition is that for some cases you would still need explicit recursion or iteration, for instance if you wanted to loop forever or until a certain condition is met, but perhaps these cases could be modelled with some special high order functions as well, or with explicit infinite recursion as in Rust's 'loop'.

They are considered hate groups because they admittedly hate women. Their diagnosis could be right, though.

It's very simple: do NOT legislate. Stop regulating every single detail. Instead, focus on making sure that the fundamental principles (fundamental rights, trade...) are respected. Those principles will probably be the same in 30 years than they were 50 years ago, or at least very similar.

There are very basic functions that the legislative power is still missing. Still, they want to regulate on super advanced topics up to the most specific details.

I have never had issues with neither HP, ASUS or Dell.

Google will obviously discard this new project once it will be starting to be working. Then it will start from the scratch again.

I see. Thanks for your work (and answer)!

Unsupervised learning is the dark matter of AI, as LeCun said. We cannot rely on labeled data, which is expensive and scarce.

The first company to figure out how to leverage the massive unlabeled data that is available will win the AI arms race.

We have already seen impressive progress (language models, GANs...) but much more work remains. Models requiring labeled data or only working with toy data (even if unlabeled) will soon become irrelevant.

I have considered multiple times switching from Python to other alternatives. However, I instantly discard any language with a Lisp-like syntax. I just cannot work with it. Being a Haskell hobbyist, I would like Python to be statically type and have better support for pure functional programming, but Python has the libraries that I need.

Happened to me with another application that shouldn't use the microphone.

Therefore, if Google and all the Android OEMs merged, no antitrust action would be taken with regards to Android apps. Is that correct?

As a developer based in Europe looking at these numbers is quite depressing.

I wonder if these detections would become just impossible once NLP researchers figure out how to integrate adversarial training (specially GANs) into their models.

Can't agree more with your second comment.

Which of the following two alternatives would be better? - Avoiding whenever possible to use explicit recursion, and call functions like map, reduce or filter. - Change the recursion primitives. Like, limiting the recursion primitive to allow only total functions.

Or...?

Hardware development was accelerated by games, too.

> His background is available on his CV: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~duvenaud/

Thank you.

Thanks!

Off-topic: could you tell us what degree did you study? What is your academic background?

I'm not proficient in Haskell, but how would the compiler be able to statically type that expression?

Okay, thank you!

I see, thanks for your time!

Can someone explain for the layman the following doubt?

One of the (many) things I still don't understand about RL even after having tried to read about it is how the loss function of Q Networks is computed if you don't have the target value. I understand that you are trying to predict the "value" of a pair (state,action), and I know that there is a formula for updating the weights based on the difference between the expected value of the next state and the maximum predicted value available plus the reward when you actually get to the state (probably I'm messing up here), but then doesn't that mean that the initialization is extremely relevant? As in, how will the rewards ever be superior to the random weights already present in the network?

And the optimization process itself would determine whether updating the model or changing the world is optimal, I guess. Thanks.

I see. Much more elegant than explicitly coding the trade-off, actually :)

Rust still lacks an effect system, though. Any plans?

Excuse me, another followup question (can't edit on mobile): can you ELI5 how do exploitation and exploration "emerge" naturally instead of the tradeoff being explicitly coded as in RL?

Excuse me, another followup question (can't edit on mobile): can you ELI5 how do exploitation and exploration "emerge" naturally instead of the tradeoff being explicitly coded as in RL?

Yes, although looking at what other people have commented, "our" intuition is quite basic. I will try to read more about FEP.

I see, thanks. Is any AI research center/company trying to model this idea, instead of applying RL?