Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life skills? Communicative skills? What?
IMO essentially ML experts don't work in a bubble and may interface with potentially anyone at a company; C-level, engineering, product, marketing, ops, etc etc. What other tech-employee needs that flexibility? So, I grouped communication / life skills into being able to understand, read, interpret and ultimately provide value to potentially any team. Just having the technical skills will only get you so far.
Machine Learning Crash Course
81–90 of 233 posts
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should recheck your definitions on convexity. >function f: R^n --> R where for all x in R^n f(x) = 0 This hyperplane is not convex. A convex curve by definition can not be equal to its tangent at any point. Edit: I should specify, I mean a convex curve cannot be completely equal to any of its tangents, obviously it will equal each tangent at a single point.
It sounds like you are describing curves that are strictly convex. Curves that are convex, but not strictly convex, can intersect their tangents at more than one point, or even at every point. I'm going by the definition of convex function given in Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis", Apostol's "Calculus", Wikipedia, and MathWorld.
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you work for a company obviously known for their ML the "expertise" out there right now is brutal. People are building recommendation engines without knowing the very, very, very basics like Jaccard indexes, ROC Curves, or topic drift. I've even had to explain type two error to someone working on one of these before. I agree with your general thrust, and you're right, messy data is often 95% of the problem, bu…
What's a "type two" error? I had to google it. It's a false negative. A "Type 1" error, is a false positive. Is this like how people overuse the term "orthogonal"?
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#84As someone who is trying to learn ML, all the courses available are hugely helpful. One thing I wish I had easy access to is the process that someone goes through while trying to build a model on a real dataset. Specifically following questions are the ones I struggle with: 1. How did you figure out what features would be useful? 2. How did you figure out what algorithm(s) are appropriate? 3. how and why did you mass…
There are various feature engineering and feature extraction techniques. Filter methods, wrapper methods, and embedded methods. Principle component analysis, autoencoding, variance analysis, linear discriminant analysis, Gini index, genetic algorithms, etc -- the feature selection process will depend on the dataset, the problem domain, the analysis algorithm you ultimately use, etc.
> How did you figure out what algorithm(s) are appropriate?
Also depends on the problem domain. Discrete or continuous data? Categorical features, numeric features, features as bitmasks. Do you need a probabilistic outcome? Etc.
Generally you start with the easiest algorithms in your toolbox to see how viable they are. For a classification task I'll almost always start with a naive Bayes classifier (if the data allows) and/or a random forest and see how they perform. If the problem domain is highly non-linear you might start with a support vector or kernel method. Neural network is a last resort for me, as I find most classification problems can be solved to a high accuracy much more simply.
> how and why did you massage the data in a specific way?
This relates back to #1 -- you should only massage data based on what your feature engineering tells you to do. Sometimes you might want to remove outliers or clean up the training data, but only if the outliers really should be removed from consideration entirely.
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#85I want to ask people who know ML well if the hype is warranted? Billions of courses, web sites, job applications and HN posts. The subject seem to have taken off massively in the last two years. I mean image and speech recognition is pretty cool (when it works!), but hardly that earth shattering, is it?
Here's a concrete example: Before spreadsheets existed, there used to be legions of accountants who created complex ledgers on paper and added up all numbers to track how a business was doing. You'd literally mail off your sales numbers to an accounting team somewhere and wait three days to get the latest report generated and sent back. Sure they had calculators to add numbers, but the computers of the day didn't understand how those numbers related to each other. The human still had to do most of the work to create the reports.
The big idea of spreadsheets was to make the computer manage the more complex task of knowing how different numbers in a report related to each other. It made most ledger tasks totally automatic once the initial report was defined. Now a single accountant could do the work of the entire accounting team - and more accurately and in less time! There were stories of the first spreadsheet testers having to delay mailing back their financial reports by a few days because their clients would be suspicious if they mailed them back too fast.
Nearly overnight accounting got a lot more efficient and companies made more money. T"What If" modeling that used to be too slow and cost prohibitive to do was now it was quick and easy. Companies could plan more intelligently. The spreadsheet was a true game changer.
This same pattern happens every time the bar is raised on the complexity of what can be automated and Machine Learning raises the bar one giant notch. Previously we were limited to automating tasks that a smart coder could describe as discrete steps in code. But with ML, the computer can figure out it's own rules just by looking at data. That means in many cases you can solve very hard problems just by collecting a lot of data. Lots and lots of things that used to be done by large groups of people will now be able to be done with a single computer.
In that sense, ML is a total game changer. Don't focus on the specific applications thus far. Focus on the idea that all kinds of tasks that used to require humans can now be automated with a little bit of applied ML. The opportunities are literally everywhere.
In a few years, ML won't be some esoteric technique used by a few people. It will be a core skill that everyone uses or touches in some way. It's going to creep into everything everywhere because it's just so darn useful.
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's a "type two" error? I had to google it. It's a false negative. A "Type 1" error, is a false positive. Is this like how people overuse the term "orthogonal"?
So, to put this in human terms. A false positive or false negative, can be like a pregnancy test. A false positive, can be where the pregnancy test shows your wife is pregnant, but she is not. And the baby never arrives. Phew, dodged a bullet! A false negative, can be where the pregnancy test shows your wife is not pregnant, but she really is. And 9 months later, a baby accidentally pops out. Oh crap!
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#87I see TensorFlow as the Angular of machine learning: first on the market, powerful but unwiedly. Like Angular, it will ultimately get superseded by tools with a nicer API (scikit-learn, Keras) or more versatility (PyTorch). Like Angular, it's probably not the best choice for a beginner to invest time into.
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#88Looking through the topics covered, the standard AI-course caveats ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247629 ) apply. Yes, AI/ML MOOCs teach the corresponding tools well, and the creation of new tools like Keras make the field much more accessible. The obsolete gatekeeping by the AI/ML elites who say "you can't use AI/ML unless you have a PhD/5 years research experience" is one of the things I really hate about…
We have to separate AI researcher and implementation engineer. These types of crash courses help get you to the point where you can reasonably work under PhD level people and write code to test, scale, and deploy their ideas. For many current applications of ML this is acceptable because you're just stealing an idea from a paper or stealing ImageNet to recognize your problem. For anything else you really need to pay…
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#89Looking through the topics covered, the standard AI-course caveats ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247629 ) apply. Yes, AI/ML MOOCs teach the corresponding tools well, and the creation of new tools like Keras make the field much more accessible. The obsolete gatekeeping by the AI/ML elites who say "you can't use AI/ML unless you have a PhD/5 years research experience" is one of the things I really hate about…
The other day I met with someone who was visiting my city to attend a big ML conference. In the course of our discussion, it transpired this person did not know the Halting Problem. He'd "heard of" Turing machines, but nothing more than "hearing" of them. Gatekeepers shouldn't keep gates just for gatekeeping sake. But if so-called ML experts don't even know undergraduate computer science, that should really give you…
Considering that ML is really a CS-oriented form of statistics, why would you expect a statistician to know CS theory?
Re: Machine Learning Crash Course
#90Looking through the topics covered, the standard AI-course caveats ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247629 ) apply. Yes, AI/ML MOOCs teach the corresponding tools well, and the creation of new tools like Keras make the field much more accessible. The obsolete gatekeeping by the AI/ML elites who say "you can't use AI/ML unless you have a PhD/5 years research experience" is one of the things I really hate about…
We have to separate AI researcher and implementation engineer. These types of crash courses help get you to the point where you can reasonably work under PhD level people and write code to test, scale, and deploy their ideas. For many current applications of ML this is acceptable because you're just stealing an idea from a paper or stealing ImageNet to recognize your problem. For anything else you really need to pay…