11–20 of 256 posts
I see a lot of 'bolt-on' tech emerging -- it looks mostly snake oil -- there is no obvious way to be competitive against teams that baked it in to the bare metal design
Also most commercial use-cases I've seen need effective ML more than anything else
The number of places where machine learning can be used effectively from both a cost perspective and a return perspective are small. They are usually tremendously large datasets at gigantic companies, and they probably have to build in house expertise because it's hard to package this up into a product and resell it for various industries, datasets, etc. Certainly something like autonomous driving needs machine learn…
If you're solving a real problem and use ML in service of solving that problem, then you've got a great moat....happy trusting customers.
It's not complicated
"Huge compute bills" usually come from training, or to be more precise, hyperparameter search that's required before you find a model that works well. You could also fail to find such a model, but that's another discussion. So yeah, you could spend one or two FTE salaries' (or one deep learning PhD's) worth of cash on finding such models for your startup if you insist on helping Jeff Bezos to wipe his tears with cris…
(I'm in full agreement with everything you've written + it's well-phrased and funny. gj!)
[0] that's not a typo - there is such thing as "Oracle cloud"
The number of places where machine learning can be used effectively from both a cost perspective and a return perspective are small. They are usually tremendously large datasets at gigantic companies, and they probably have to build in house expertise because it's hard to package this up into a product and resell it for various industries, datasets, etc. Certainly something like autonomous driving needs machine learn…
How would you explain the rise (and success) of machine learning in science? A lab that uses some learning-based method will likely be limited to just one or two people (responsible for data acquisition, feature engineering, evaluation, etc.) and extremely finite data.
"Huge compute bills" usually come from training, or to be more precise, hyperparameter search that's required before you find a model that works well. You could also fail to find such a model, but that's another discussion. So yeah, you could spend one or two FTE salaries' (or one deep learning PhD's) worth of cash on finding such models for your startup if you insist on helping Jeff Bezos to wipe his tears with cris…
Context please :) ?
The number of places where machine learning can be used effectively from both a cost perspective and a return perspective are small. They are usually tremendously large datasets at gigantic companies, and they probably have to build in house expertise because it's hard to package this up into a product and resell it for various industries, datasets, etc. Certainly something like autonomous driving needs machine learn…
How would you explain the rise (and success) of machine learning in science? A lab that uses some learning-based method will likely be limited to just one or two people (responsible for data acquisition, feature engineering, evaluation, etc.) and extremely finite data.
I've seen a lot of cross pollination of ML and AI techniques into various disciplines. A large percentage just didn't work at all, most of the rest were more "kind of interesting, but". Nothing earthshaking happened although pop sci press likes to talk about it a lot.
If you have more digital data than you used to, using modern free frameworks and toolkits to do basic (i.e. older, boring, but understood) ML stuff to understand it seems to have a reasonable return. Mostly I think this is because it becomes accessible to someone without much background in the area, and you can do reasonable things without having to put 6 months of reading and implementing together before starting.
"Huge compute bills" usually come from training, or to be more precise, hyperparameter search that's required before you find a model that works well. You could also fail to find such a model, but that's another discussion. So yeah, you could spend one or two FTE salaries' (or one deep learning PhD's) worth of cash on finding such models for your startup if you insist on helping Jeff Bezos to wipe his tears with cris…
- Or Tensorflow/Pytorch could've crapped on OpenCL a little less by releasing a fully functional OpenCL version everytime they released a fully functional Cuda version, instead of worshipping Cuda year in and year out.
- Or Google could start selling their TPUv2, if not TPUv3, while they're on the verge of releasing TPUv4.
- Or one of the other big-tech's Facebook/Microsoft/Intel could make and start selling a TPU-equivalent device.
- Or I could finish school and get funded to do all/most of the above ;)
edit: On a more serious note, a cloud/on-prem hybrid is absolutely the right way to go. You should have a 4x 2080 ti rig available 24x7 for every ML engineer. It costs about $6k-8k a piece [0]. Prototype the hell out of your models on on-prem hardware. Then when your setup is in working condition and starts producing good results on small problems, you're ready to do a big computation for final model training. Then you send it to the cloud, for final production run. (Guess what, on a majority of your projects, you might realize, the final production run could be carried out on on-prem itself; you just have to keep it running 24 hours-a-day for a few days or up to a couple weeks.)
[0]: https://l7.curtisnorthcutt.com/the-best-4-gpu-deep-learning-...