What? Deep Learning is measurably out-performing previous algorithms, and making falsifiable predictions.
And if you read HN and can't think of progress in the last five years, then you must be incredibly cynical.
If you'd care to quote the entire thing where I was telling you you cannot verify it unless you have enough "mana" (i.e. money) to try it, you would also see you have answered your own rebuttal with my original post.
> if you read HN and can't think of progress in the last five years, then you must be incredibly cynical.
Perhaps! But I don't see you refuting me in any way, so perhaps I'm just correct :)
I use deep learning all the time, every day, and the results are better than previous algorithms. I don't need to "verify" the results to know they're better.
> Perhaps! But I don't see you refuting me in any way, so perhaps I'm just correct :)
You're standing in the middle of a record store and complaining that there's no good new music, and then you think the problem is that I'm not enumerating examples to refute you?
If you can't find things to be impressed by on HN, then again, I think you're incredibly cynical.
Reading on HN means 99% of the times aspirational stuff. Aspirational stuff doesn't count.
What counts is stuff that improves quality of life in the real world, not just aspirationally sometimes in the future in order to play the musical chair game of the stock market or VC markets.
Stuff like mRNA vaccines.
An other example would be fracking but that largely happened 2005-2015
So which is it? Is HN filled with content showcasing the pipeline of innovation or not?
Improvements in farming and husbandry are also not being deployed as they're marginally more expensive, even though we critically need them.
The visibly good technologies exist and need to be deployed; due to lack of investment in them, cost is prohibitive.