<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Device Placement Optimization with Reinforcement Learning · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1706.04972/</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/1706.04972/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Device Placement Optimization with Reinforcement Learning — mentioned by Smerity</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20742065</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1706.04972:20742065</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:38:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Given these chips are purely meant for machine learning the issue that &amp;quot;your wafer computer was always going to be sub-optimal at something&amp;quot; is less of an issue now than in traditional scientific programming setups, especially of the Trillogy / Transmeta days. You have silicon in place to deal with physical defects at the hardware level. You have backprop / machine learning in place to deal with physical deficiencies at the software level. The programmer operates mostly at the objective / machine learning model level and can tweak the task setup as needed softly influenced by both the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1706.04972/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
