Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
kaijia | on: Proving and improving the Platonic Representation Hypothesis with JEPAs
I am sick of theory papers that adds human interpretation to connect a mathematical result to some fancy terms that everyone seeks after in real-world ML applications. Ironically, chatGPT is the most productive way to strip off those advertisement so the essence is better exposed. https://chatgpt.com/share/6ae78178-c2ec-83ea-9bc3-fd304c64ec...
skyzoidbroczky | parent | next
I share your exasperation, it is especially tiring to see that what would be more appropriately called a quantitative approximation of a concept is here called a Platonic Representation by virtue of a vague and misunderstood analogy with Platonic Ideas which were according to the Platonic doctrine, formless and part of his distinction between what is subject to change (to heteron) et what is not affected by change (to auto) [Timeaus, Platon].
kooi | parent
The results are in the math. Does not really matter the terms used.

You wont get anything materially useful, apart from an intuition, from using different terminology.

kaijia | root | parent | next
you get materially better marketing at the cost of accurately describing the math results in the title and abstract.
Anon84 | root | parent | next
Mass media doesn’t read math.
kooi | root | parent
Mass media doesent do ML reseaech.
nickpsecurity | root | parent
The math can be misinterpreted, misapplied, or not fit reality. That's why high-assurance security mandated a combination of things:

1. English specification of the system and its goals

2. Formal, mathematical specification of the system and its goals

3. Mathematical proof the system met its goals

4. Code implementing that system with a proof, often informal, that the code embodied the informal and formal design.

5. Tests of all functionality to prove the design and code worked.

6. Independent analysis of the above to find flaws in them.

7. If the implementation has concurrency or parallelism, more errors can occur due to that. There were techniques to mitigate it.

Each step found problems in systems made by professionals. Mathematical work and coding both have a long history of errors in their on fields. Combining them increases the likelihood of error.

kooi | root | parent
Not sure what all these words mean. These are mathematical results, I'm not sure why people are acting like they are anything otherwise.
nickpsecurity | root | parent
Math is a social process that involves mental concepts, symbols for them, and discussion about them. It also needs peer review. If you see math in a paper, that's only one part of the process.

Further, in machine learning, we see lots of papers with math that doesn't lead to anything useful. Most papers claiming advances over prior architectures don't pan out in later testing. So, there will be skepticism when people make performance claims like the authors'. The best response is just independent testing.