CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 860Neural Networks and ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal

Open access
Marcus, Gary·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1801.00631arXiv 1801.00631
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although deep learning has historical roots going back decades, neither the term "deep learning" nor the approach was popular just over five years ago, when the field was reignited by papers such as Krizhevsky, Sutskever and Hinton's now classic (2012) deep network model of Imagenet. What has the field discovered in the five subsequent years? Against a background of considerable progress in areas such as speech recognition, image recognition, and game playing, and considerable enthusiasm in the popular press, I present ten concerns for deep learning, and suggest that deep learning must be supplemented by other techniques if we are to reach artificial general intelligence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1801.00631

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many forms of ML are notorious for their inability to generalise from small numbers of training examples, notably deep learning.

    “Many forms of ML are notorious for their inability to generalise from small numbers of training examples, notably deep learning (Marcus, 2018; Chollet, 2019; Bengio et al., 2019).”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Marcus, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Athalye, A., Engstrom, L., Ilyas, A., & Kwok, K. (2017). Synthesizing Robust Adversarial Examples. arXiv , cs.CV .
  2. Bottou, L. (2015). Two big challenges in machine learning . Proceedings from 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning.
  3. Evtimov, I., Eykholt, K., Fernandes, E., Kohno, T., Li, B., Prakash, A. et al. (2017). Robust Physical-World Attacks on Deep Learning Models. arXiv , cs.CR .
  4. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT press .
  5. Huang, S., Papernot, N., Goodfellow, I., Duan, Y., & Abbeel, P. (2017). Adversarial Attacks on Neural Network Policies. arXiv , cs.LG .
  6. Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow (1st pbk. ed. ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  7. Ko č isk ý , T., Schwarz, J., Blunsom, P., Dyer, C., Hermann, K. M., Melis, G. et al. (2017). The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challenge. arXiv , cs.CL .
  8. Lerer, A., Gross, S., & Fergus, R. (2016). Learning Physical Intuition of Block Towers by Example. arXiv , cs.AI .
  9. Lighthill, J. (1973). Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey. Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium .
  10. Lipton, Z. C. (2016). The Mythos of Model Interpretability. arXiv , cs.LG .
  11. Luc, P., Neverova, N., Couprie, C., Verbeek, J., & LeCun, Y. (2017). Predicting Deeper into the Future of Semantic Segmentation. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV 2017) .
  12. Neelakantan, A., Le, Q. V., Abadi, M., McCallum, A., & Amodei, D. (2016). Learning a Natural Language Interface with Neural Programmer. arXiv .
  13. Ng, A. (2016). What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can't Do Right Now. Harvard Business Review .
  14. Norvig, P. (2016). State-of-the-Art AI: Building Tomorrow's Intelligent Systems. Proceedings from EmTech Digital, San Francisco.
  15. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). 'Why Should I Trust You?': Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. arXiv , cs.LG .
  16. Sabour, S., Frosst, N., & Hinton, G. E. (2017). Dynamic Routing Between Capsules. arXiv , cs.CV .
  17. Stoica, I., Song, D., Popa, R. A., Patterson, D., Mahoney, M. W., Katz, R. et al. (2017). A Berkeley View of Systems Challenges for AI. arXiv , cs.AI .
  18. Szegedy, C., Zaremba, W., Sutskever, I., Bruna, J., Erhan, D., Goodfellow, I. et al. (2013). Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv , cs.CV .
  19. Vinyals, O., Toshev, A., Bengio, S., & Erhan, D. (2014). Show and Tell: A Neural Image Caption Generator. arXiv , cs.CV .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Marcus, G.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Marcus, Gary
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1801.00631
arXiv
1801.00631
OpenAlex
W2781474777
Cited by
853
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 122 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 180 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
deep learning, artificial general intelligence, deep learning limitations, image recognition, speech recognition, game playing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review