I don't think your post makes any sense.<p>It's on AskHN and you don't have a question. Also...<p>- How did you define and measure progress?<p>- How did you measure the number of people working in the field?<p>- If true, why would any of this be a problem?<p>- Why does a field need to constantly progress? For example, you could say that there's been even less progress in linear regression or random forest methods over the past five years - this doesn't take away from their usefulness in certain applications.<p>- Why would the assumed slow rate of progress mean that DL needs to be replaced?<p>- If you find more suitable solutions, you're always free to implement them in place of DL.
I’m confused about a few things:<p>1. What is slowest based on?<p>2. Is the comment about people working in the field meant to demonstrate something about slowness or some other point?