At that earlier time, datasets were so small that hand-engineered methods worked better than convolutional nets.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
'That earlier time' means the period before large datasets, roughly the 1990s to the late 2000s, before ImageNet-scale benchmarks. Judge as of 2021 against the historical record. True: benchmark results and historical accounts from that period show that on the main tasks (especially vision benchmarks), hand-engineered feature methods generally performed as well as or better than convolutional nets, and that small dataset size is commonly given as a main reason. Mostly true: hand-engineered methods generally won, but the evidence attributes this only partly to dataset size, or convnets did win on some small-data tasks such as digit recognition. Mixed: the two approaches were roughly level, or which one won depended heavily on the task. Mostly false: convolutional nets were already competitive or better on most benchmarks, and hand-engineered methods led only in narrow cases. False: convolutional nets generally outperformed hand-engineered methods in that period.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (3)
-
E1 Limitations of Deep Learning for Vision, and How We Might Fix Them The Gradient · 9 February 2019
“While most of the basic ideas of deep learning were already developed during the second wave, their power could not be unleashed until large datasets and powerful computers (GPUs) became available.”
-
E2 Kernel Descriptors for Visual Recognition University of Washington (Bo, Ren, Fox; NIPS paper)
“Both our gradient kernel descriptor and shape kernel descriptor are superior to CDBN by a large margin.”
-
E3 Deep learning Nature (LeCun, Bengio & Hinton review, 2015) · 28 May 2015 Own record
“By the late 1990s this system was reading over 10% of all the cheques in the United States.”
Reasoning
E1 links deep learning's progress in general to large datasets and GPUs, and E2 reports one undated result in which kernel descriptors beat a convolutional deep belief network. E4 does not show that convnets succeeded on small-data tasks. None of the evidence shows whether hand-engineered methods generally outperformed convolutional nets on the main benchmarks of the 1990s to late 2000s, so the criteria cannot be settled.
Cite this claim
Yann LeCun, “At that earlier time, datasets were so small that hand-engineered methods worked better than convolutional nets.” (said 2021). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_a1fd2099a442, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_a1fd2099a442
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Yann LeCun
-
Mostly true
“For starters, transformers are equivariant to permutations.”
Transformers are equivariant to permutations, as ConvNets are equivariant to translations.
-
Mostly true
“If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.”
-
Mostly true
“The architecture is good, the architecture of the encoder is good, but the fact that you train the system to reconstruct images does not lead it to produce to long, good generic features of images.”
-
Mostly true
“LLMs can do none of those or they can only do them in a very primitive way and they don’t really understand the physical world.”
-
Mostly true
“No, there’s one thing that autoregressive LLMs or that LLMs in general, not just the autoregressive one, but including the bird style bidirectional ones, are exploiting and its self supervised…”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.