Neil Zhu，简书ID Not_GOD，University AI 创始人 & Chief Scientist，致力于推进世界人工智能化进程。制定并实施 UAI 中长期增长战略和目标，带领团队快速成长为人工智能领域最专业的力量。
作为行业领导者，他和UAI一起在2014年创建了TASA（中国最早的人工智能社团）, DL Center（深度学习知识中心全球价值网络），AI growth（行业智库培训）等，为中国的人工智能人才建设输送了大量的血液和养分。此外，他还参与或者举办过各类国际性的人工智能峰会和活动，产生了巨大的影响力，书写了60万字的人工智能精品技术内容，生产翻译了全球第一本深度学习入门书《神经网络与深度学习》，生产的内容被大量的专业垂直公众号和媒体转载与连载。曾经受邀为国内顶尖大学制定人工智能学习规划和教授人工智能前沿课程，均受学生和老师好评。
Regarding the question of theory and neural nets / deep learning, Michael Nielsen wrote a nice piece in Chapter 3 of his upcoming free online book free online book which I think helps to shed some healthy perspective on one of the questions raised in the Technion debate on deep learning on which I commented recently and which drew several interesting additional comments (see the post).
I quote from Nielsen (and agree with these statements):
"Understanding neural networks in their full generality is a problem that, like quantum foundations, tests the limits of the human mind. Instead, we often make do with evidence for or against a few specific instances of a general statement. As a result those statements sometimes later need to be modified or abandoned, when new evidence comes to light."
and
"Does this mean you should reject heuristic explanations as unrigorous, and not sufficiently evidence-based? No! In fact, we need such heuristics to inspire and guide our thinking. It's like the great age of exploration: the early explorers sometimes explored (and made new discoveries) on the basis of beliefs which were wrong in important ways. Later, those mistakes were corrected as we filled in our knowledge of geography. When you understand something poorly - as the explorers understood geography, and as we understand neural nets today - it's more important to explore boldly than it is to be rigorously correct in every step of your thinking. And so you should view these stories as a useful guide to how to think about neural nets, while retaining a healthy awareness of the limitations of such stories, and carefully keeping track of just how strong the evidence is for any given line of reasoning. Put another way, we need good stories to help motivate and inspire us, and rigorous in-depth investigation in order to uncover the real facts of the matter."
and now quoting from Yann LeCun:
"You have to realize that our theoretical tools are very weak. Sometimes, we have good mathematical intuitions for why a particular technique should work. Sometimes our intuition ends up being wrong [...] The questions become: how well does my method work on this particular problem, and how large is the set of problems on which it works well."
(thanks also to Stephen Hsu to bring this up to my attention in his blog post).
