>>11387341>Are you claiming that scholars with years of experience, still don't understand what happens on the inside?In the sense that we know what we're using to optimize the network and we know how the connections are laid out, obviously no. In the sense that nobody understands why it's working faster than all the known theoretical bounds developed that fit the assumptions we should be restrained by, yes.
So I don't know about calling it a black box (that's more the purview of FUDtards, futurologists and other
>>>/x/ retards), but that doesn't mean it makes any (known) sense that it's working at all.
>meaning you just had to brute force your way through to obtain 'hidden' insights.That's a completely different topic: "how to understand what the network's solution is". For this there are many ways to go about it but it's fairly meaningless. Networks almost never converge to optimal solutions and solutions they converge to are usually very convoluted and pointless to analyse for the most part.
The most useful insight you can get is "there exists a good solution that only relies on X Y Z parts of the input" but even then that's mostly "the entire input in some non-clear way". Because multiple layers interact in complex ways, anything more complicated than logistic regression ends up not giving you clear interaction between variables if you don't use things like attention or structured layers like convolutions.
And none of that explains "how the optimization works" or how come it's faster than search methods or monte carlo algorithms, or WHERE it converges to, etc.
