Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

threadreaderapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 331 posts

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#181

Post by notyourday »

"Machine learning" is an excellent tool to separate extra money from "customers". Founders are separating extra money from VCs. Engineers are separating extra money from the founders. Just reading this thread keeps illustrating this.

Want to get a job done? Use a tool that gets a job done. Want to talk about getting a job done and be "listened" to - use ML to beat around the bush.

This is no different from all these companies talking about Big Data[tm] a few years ago, hiding people to build large processing clusters when their entire dataset would fit into memory of $700 server obtained from Ebay.

Neither it is different from companies mumbling about availability challenges when the entire stack gets sub 100 hits per second.

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#182

Post by soVeryTired »

kriro wrote: post #160

The article doesn't convince me. It can be summarized as "don't overengineer" but quite frankly these days ML/DL is so easy to apply from a technical point of view (taking care of the data or fully grasping the things you apply is another issue) that I don't see why one wouldn't at least try to use it. I don't see why a ML-algorithm couldn't grab the first name for example. I mean if your argument is "just use SQL" m…

The right questions to ask are "what is the incremental benefit I can get from ML over a simple rules-based system? How much does that added complexity cost?".

Costs include technical debt, increased maintenance, general opacity, and the risk that the complex model runs amok and does something stupid (which is more common than you might think).

Sometimes those costs are justified, sometimes they aren't.

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#183

Post by notyourday »

collyw wrote: post #149
voltagex_ wrote: post #110

Are SQL skills disappearing from companies? Could this be a reason people are reaching for more complicated solutions because they don't know what a good SQL database can do?

I blame the NoSQl nonsense from a few years ago. "Relational databases don't scale" apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#184

Post by Piskvorrr »

piyush_soni wrote: post #175

Now write an SQL Query to find all photographs that have me and my wife sitting in a boat in them.

...minus the ones which are obviously a toaster, while the AI insists they're you and your wife sitting in a boat ;) Now what?

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#185

Post by dzmien »

kriro wrote: post #160

The article doesn't convince me. It can be summarized as "don't overengineer" but quite frankly these days ML/DL is so easy to apply from a technical point of view (taking care of the data or fully grasping the things you apply is another issue) that I don't see why one wouldn't at least try to use it. I don't see why a ML-algorithm couldn't grab the first name for example. I mean if your argument is "just use SQL" m…

I don't think the author was trying to suggest that people stop using/developing ML/AI. I think the point was that ML is not some kind of black magic panacea, and that a smart programmer is often more valuable than a 'smart' machine.

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#186

Post by piyush_soni »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #184
piyush_soni wrote: post #175

Now write an SQL Query to find all photographs that have me and my wife sitting in a boat in them.

...minus the ones which are obviously a toaster, while the AI insists they're you and your wife sitting in a boat ;) Now what?

Well, yes, it's not perfect yet, but then I'm pretty sure SQL Queries won't fare any better here ;). Google photos does quite a decent job for me in many cases.

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#187

Post by Piskvorrr »

badminton1 wrote: post #66

Write me a SQL query that labels images, produces a transcript from sounds, recognizes handwritten text, does facial recognition or recommends items. See the point? Welcome to 2018.

Except wan you gat whoa ird trance scriptions, people tagged as gorillas and recommendations "I see you bought $that, do you also want to buy $that?" There's No Silver Bullet, welcome to $any_year.

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#188

Post by cup-of-tea »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #187
badminton1 wrote: post #66

Write me a SQL query that labels images, produces a transcript from sounds, recognizes handwritten text, does facial recognition or recommends items. See the point? Welcome to 2018.

Except wan you gat whoa ird trance scriptions, people tagged as gorillas and recommendations "I see you bought $that, do you also want to buy $that?" There's No Silver Bullet, welcome to $any_year.

What language is this?

Re: You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

#189

Post by JepZ »

adriand wrote: post #170
JepZ wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is just how larger corporations work. They probably decided they wanted to be part of that future market about AI and therefore want to invest in AI/ML startups. Someone sold your company internally as being a nice fit for the AI portfolio, but when you answered the question about ML with "No" the door was shut. From someone who makes large trade deals as his daily business, I learned "Never say 'No'" (during a…

You should never mislead a potential investor. Why would you want an investor who is misaligned with your core technology/strategic direction?

Well, nobody wants a misaligned investor. But I had the impression the negotiations already failed, because one buzzword could not be satisfied. My comment was meant more as advice to overcome such problematic situations during negotiations, than to mislead someone about what you are actually doing.
Post reply on HN