OA
2020年9月3日
Great course. Easy to understand and with very synthetized information on the most relevant topics, even though some videos repeat information due to wrong edition, everything is still understandable.
AR
2020年7月11日
I really enjoyed this course, it would be awesome to see al least one training example using GPU (maybe in Google Colab since not everyone owns one) so we could train the deepest networks from scratch
創建者 Patrick M
•2019年2月8日
Too many mistakes in assignment material
創建者 Karan D
•2018年1月7日
there were bugs in the jupyter notebooks
創建者 Mohammad A
•2020年9月19日
programming assignments are not helpful
創建者 eric v
•2018年4月19日
some of the quizzes were a little buggy
創建者 Walid M A
•2017年11月17日
I did not like the assignments of w#4
創建者 Pakhapoom S
•2021年3月14日
The videos need to be edited properly.
創建者 Sai D S
•2019年1月17日
Little bit hard programming Excercise
創建者 Xirui Z
•2021年4月7日
Too hard for someone new to tf.
創建者 Sanskar j
•2020年6月18日
Assignments can be made better
創建者 Jisheng L
•2018年6月15日
Need improvement on assignment
創建者 Pedro C
•2018年6月10日
notebook were not functional
創建者 Modassir A
•2020年5月11日
need improvement of content
創建者 Olatunji O
•2019年2月12日
Notebooks are a bit buggy
創建者 Yi-Hao K
•2018年1月20日
Serious bug in assignment
創建者 Yide Z
•2018年1月13日
too many errors in test
創建者 akshat
•2021年6月25日
Labs should be tougher
創建者 KevinZhou
•2018年5月8日
部分内容讲的不是很清楚,有些剪切不好,有重复
創建者 Kenneth C V
•2020年12月4日
Very complex Subject
創建者 zz
•2018年3月5日
没有翻译 tenserflow也讲得不好
創建者 Pavao S
•2018年3月2日
Not enough theory
創建者 neda m
•2020年6月22日
too theoretical
創建者 Volker H
•2017年12月16日
too many bugs
創建者 Shimaa
•2021年8月30日
so hard :(
創建者 Logos
•2020年8月27日
It was okay. Andrew is obviously very knowledgeable, and there is a wealth of knowledge here. I could go through it a couple more times and still pick up new stuff.
That being said, I've heard him mention he did these videos at like 1 or 2 in the morning after work, and it's very obvious from the videos. He makes so many mistakes that every other lecture (it seems like) has a **CORRECTION** notification next to it. I mean it's great they give this additional correction information, but it would be even better if you just redid the video.
Furthermore, he like stops in the middle of the videos and then repeats the last sentence he said, because he made another mistake. I get it, Andrew is very successful, he's very busy, and I am definitely grateful for the knowledge he's provided in this course. But this makes for a very poor learning experience, because I'm taking notes, and I have to go back and redo them, plus the general angst you get when you're learning something and someone's like "oh wait nope that's not right, forget that." Well for God's sake I already learned it.
Finally, the submission assignments are the most annoying things I have ever come across. They are riddled with errors and misguided information where they literally tell you to use the wrong parameters, and then they never fix it. You have to go into the discussions to find out why your code is wrong, even though you're doing it right.
Then, you'll get everything right on your code for the test cases, and when you go to submit it fails you. And when I say it fails you, it gives you a literally 0 out of like 30 points. And the grader output just says "your submission was incorrect" like no way, I had no idea. Thank you for that very **cough** helpful piece of info.
If you go to the discussions, you find out this is actually a problem with how the grader is built, because if you don't format your code exactly the right way, it fails you, even if your solution is correct. I don't understand why it can be right when you run test cases, but submitting it fails.
Overall, I give it 3 stars before the poor grading, but because of the poor grading performance I have to bring it down to 2. I can't tell you how much time I wasted trying to figure out why my code was wrong just to realize it was right, but they screwed up their implementation.
In conclusion, this reminded me of a college course, where the professor has a ton of knowledge and is in high demand, and doesn't really care whether you get anything out of the course or not. It's sloppy, doesn't seem to be maintained very well, and most of the mentor's responses are literally "did you look at your colleagues similar questions?" Like no I didn't, that's why I'm asking. Why am I paying you so I can spend more time debugging your screw ups? Or maybe I did and I still don't get it because your explanations are ridiculously unclear.
I have one more course in this specialization and I absolutely can't wait for it to get over with so i can move on to more productive (and immersive, since these exercises are just one off "do this then do that" instructions, I still don't know how to set up a Deep Learning project from scratch) ways to learn Deep Learning. If Andrew wasn't so knowledgeable about this topic, I wouldn't even take it because it's that bad. But really you can't get this type of knowledge in such a condensed form anywhere else.
創建者 Juan R
•2018年2月15日
I found it very easy to go through the assignments and the quizzes were great, but I do have 2 complaints: -- I didn't get quiz feedbacks (they seem to be disabled), so, this is a huge let down and I wasn't able to completely grasp the concepts. -- For example the Gram matrix I had to accept it was true when they said "if the filters are quite similar then the dot product will be high". Show this please? #mastery #selfcontained. -- Another example, on the programming assignment, on Neural Style transfer, it is POORLY explained how the framework works when it comes to setting a_G and a_C. Then it is said "this will be covered (explained) in the "model" function, which wasn't. -- I have printed most of the mentioned papers and I am starting to read them, I loved the fact you recommended papers on this lesson, and the rest of the programming assignments were great, especially when you would provide "Hint" to go to the docs and lookup the method, etc.