<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Image denoising with multi-layer perceptrons, part 2: training trade-offs and analysis of their mechanisms · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1211.1552/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1211.1552/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Image denoising with multi-layer perceptrons, part 2: training trade-offs and analysis of their mechanisms — mentioned by hcburger</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11438880</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1211.1552:11438880</guid><pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:15:12 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m the author of the blog post. I think you&amp;#x27;re right in saying that neural nets are hard to reason about. It&amp;#x27;s probably impossible to put into words exactly how a deep neural network achieves its results. There are two ways to interpret this: 1) This is a bad thing, because we don&amp;#x27;t understand exactly how the neural net works. We can&amp;#x27;t really be sure there won&amp;#x27;t be an unexpected failure case. 2) This is a good thing, because we don&amp;#x27;t HAVE to understand how the neural network works. We had no idea how to solve the problem, but we just threw loads of data at a neural network, and it solved the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1211.1552/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CV</category></item></channel></rss>
