Dude on the right is correct that perturbed gradient descent with threshold functions and backprop feedback was implemented before most of us were born.
The current boom is an embarrassingly parallel task meeting an architecture designed to run that kind of task.
The current boom is an embarrassingly parallel task meeting an architecture designed to run that kind of task.
Plus organizations outside of the FAANGs having hit critical mass on data that’s actually useful for mass comparison multiple correlation analyses, and data as a service platforms making things seem sexier to management in those organizations.
I think the usage implies it’s so easy to parallelize that any competent programmer should be embarrassed if they weren’t running it in parallel. Whereas many classes of problems can be extremely complex or impossible to parallelize, and running them sequentially would be perfectly acceptable.
Dude on the right is correct that perturbed gradient descent with threshold functions and backprop feedback was implemented before most of us were born.
The current boom is an embarrassingly parallel task meeting an architecture designed to run that kind of task.
Plus organizations outside of the FAANGs having hit critical mass on data that’s actually useful for mass comparison multiple correlation analyses, and data as a service platforms making things seem sexier to management in those organizations.
Random but why is “embarrassing” or similar adjectives so often used to describe a parallel program? What’s embarrassing about it?
“Embarrassingly parallelizable” is just the term for a process that can be perfectly paralleled.
rather odd choice of adjective though
I think the usage implies it’s so easy to parallelize that any competent programmer should be embarrassed if they weren’t running it in parallel. Whereas many classes of problems can be extremely complex or impossible to parallelize, and running them sequentially would be perfectly acceptable.
It’s commonly used in some corners of computer science
It’s in the same spirit as the phrase “an embarrassment of riches”. So a bit of an archaic usage.