This is a theoretical paper, as a companion paper of the plenary talk for the same conference ISAIC 2022. In contrast to the author's plenary talk in the same conference, conscious learning (Weng, 2022b; Weng, 2022c) which develops a single network for a life (many tasks), "Deep Learning" trains multiple networks for each task. Although "Deep Learning" may use different learning modes, including supervised, reinforcement and adversarial modes, almost all "Deep Learning" projects apparently suffer from the same misconduct, called "data deletion" and "test on training data". This paper establishes a theorem that a simple method called Pure-Guess Nearest Neighbor (PGNN) reaches any required errors on validation data set and test data set, including zero-error requirements, through the same misconduct, as long as the test data set is in the possession of the authors and both the amount of storage space and the time of training are finite but unbounded. The misconduct violates well-known protocols called transparency and cross-validation. The nature of the misconduct is fatal, because in the absence of any disjoint test, "Deep Learning" is clearly not generalizable.
翻译:这是一份理论论文,作为同次会议全体会议的全体会议谈话的配套文件,ISAIC 2022年。与作者在同一次会议上的全体会议谈话相反,有意识的学习(Weng, 2022b;Weng, 2022c)为生活开发单一网络(许多任务),“深学习”为每个任务培训多个网络。虽然“深学习”可能使用不同的学习模式,包括监管、强化和对抗模式,但几乎所有“深学习”项目显然都遭受同样的不当行为,称为“数据删除”和“培训数据测试”。与作者在同一次会议上的全体会议谈话相反,这份文件确立了一种理论,即所谓的“纯Guess Neearighbor(PGNNN)”的简单方法在验证数据集和测试数据集(包括零-error要求)上达到任何必要的错误,通过同样的不当行为,只要测试数据集在作者手中,储存空间和训练时间是有限的,但不受限制。不当行为违反了众所周知的称为透明度和交叉评价的规程。不当行为的性质是致命的,因为缺乏任何全面的综合测试,因此,“不彻底的”不是致命的。