Live data from Hacker News

Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

docs.google.com

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#61
post #19

As someone who works with a lot of people new to machine learning, I appreciate guides like this. I especially like the early slides that help frame AI vs ML vs DL so that people can have a realistic understanding of what these technologies are for. For my part, one of the biggest realization I had after many years of applying machine learning was that I got too caught up in the machine learning algorithms themselves…

> Fortunately, there are new automated tools today that can do that automatically. can you please elaborate?

One very old tool for such things was called "stepwise regression". IIRC J. Tukey was partially involved in that. It appears that the AI/ML work is close to the regression and curve fitting going back strongly to the early days of computers in the 1960s and a lot in the social sciences back to the 1940s and even about 1900.

A lot is known. E.g., there's the now classic Draper and Smith, Applied Regression Analysis. Software IBM Scientific Subroutine Package (SSP), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), SAS (Statistical Analysis System), etc. does the arithmetic for texts such as Draper and Smith. For some decades some of the best users of such applied math were the empirical macro economic model builders. E.g., once at a hearing in Congress I heard a guy, IIRC, Adams talking about that.

Lesson: If are going to do curve fitting for model building, then a lot is known. Maybe what is new is working with millions of independent variables and trillions of bytes of data. But it stands to reason that there will also be problems with 1, 2, 1 dozen, 2 dozen variables and some thousands or millions of bytes of data, and people have been doing a lot of work like that for over half a century. Sometimes they did good work. If want to do model building on that more modest and common scale, my guess is that should look mostly at the old very well done work. Here is just a really short sampling of some of that old work:

Stephen E. Fienberg, The Analysis of Cross-Classified Data, ISBN 0-262-06063-9, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.

Yvonne M. M. Bishop, Stephen E. Fienberg, Paul W. Holland, Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice, ISBN 0-262-52040-0, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.

Shelby J. Haberman, Analysis of Qualitative Data, Volume 1, Introductory Topics, ISBN 0-12-312501-4, Academic-Press, 1978.

Shelby J. Haberman, Analysis of Qualitative Data, Volume 2, New Developments, ISBN 0-12-312502-2, Academic-Press, 1979.

Henry Scheffe, Analysis of Variance, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967.

C. Radhakrishna Rao, Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications: Second Edition, ISBN 0-471-70823-2, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967.

N. R. Draper and H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1968.

Leo Breiman, Jerome H. Friedman, Richard A. Olshen, Charles J. Stone, Classification and Regression Trees, ISBN 0-534-98054-6, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California, 1984.

There is a lesson about curve fitting: There was the ancient Greek Ptolemy who took data on the motions of the planets and fitted circles and circles inside circles, etc. and supposedly, except for some use of Kelly's Variable Constant and Finkel's Fudge Factor, got good fits. The problem, his circles had next to nothing to do with planetary motion; instead, that's based on ellipses and that was from more observations, Kepler, and Newton. Lesson: Empirical curve fitting is not the only approach.

Actually the more mathematical statistics texts, e.g, the ones with theorems and proofs, say, "We KNOW that our system is linear and has just these variables and we KNOW about the statistical properties of our data, e.g., Gaussian errors, independent and identically distributed, and ALL we want to do is just get some good estimates of the coefficients with confidence intervals and t-tests and confidence intervals on predicted values. Then, can go through all that statistics and see how to do that. But notice the assumptions at the beginning: We KNOW the system is linear, etc. and are ONLY trying to estimate the coefficients that we KNOW exist. That's long been a bit distant from practice and is apparently still farther from current ML practice.

Okay, ML for image processing. Okay. I am unsure about how much image processing there is to do where there is enough good data for the ML techniques to do well.

Generally there is much, much more to what can be done with applied math, applied probability, and statistics than curve fitting. My view is that the real opportunities are in this much larger area and not in the recent comparatively small area of ML.

E.g., my startup has some original work in applied probability. Some of that work does some things some people in statistics said could not be done. No, it's doable: But it's not in the books. What is in the books is asking too much from my data. So, the books are trying for too much, and with my data that's impossible. But I'm asking for less than is in the books, and that is possible and from my data. I can't go into details in public, but my lesson is this:

There a lot in applied math and applications that is really powerful and not currently popular, canned, etc.

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I both make most of my money from time series data and use deep learning and work with data with no labels. Here's a recent presentation I did on some of this work and a companion presentation I encourage people to read on how to use this effectively in production. While you are right that some feature engineering is needed, there's no reason DL can't be a part of your workflow. https://www.slideshare.net/agibsonccc/…

Thanks for the info! The book looks interesting. Do you have an opinion on the fast.ai and deeplearning.ai courses? I finally have some time to work through these and since the deeplearning.ai series starts on December 18th, I'm wondering which one to dive into since I can't tell from the outside how they compare.

I would take both. deeplearning.ai focuses more on math fundamentals, fast.ai takes a more coding oriented approach. It also has 2 classes: a beginner and advanced one. I personally prefer the fast.ai approach.

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#64

Nice introduction, but I really don't see how "2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to" applies.

I think the author meant "banging my head against the wall" while getting it all working but didn't realize the term has a very different meaning...

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#65
Reading normally, and skipping the videos, the whole deck takes about 15 minutes. The last 3rd of the slides are basically promotional material for the various Cloud ML services that are out there.

It's nice deck, but I'd hoped the blue slides went more technical without dropping out to various videos. If wanted videos, I'd go to youtube directly. Not everyone wants to learn through watching people talk. I learn best when I read, it's unfortunate that youngsters these days think that the written word is now a poor cousin to flashy video.

In the same way that new clothes are no longer for me, and new music is no longer for me, and all good TV shows and films are full of people half my age, I also now feel that I'm being aged off the internet.

I was here first, you young whippersnappers! It's MY lawn.

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#66

If I understand correctly those are slides from a Googler (Not sure if those slides have corporate approval), that probably have as a side goal to showcase that Google is a fun place to do ML. Not that I am judging or anything but, the author's personal website http://www.jasonmayes.com/ whose link is displayed multiple times is a giant ad to get hired elsewhere and show at least some desire for other career opportun…

Checking his website, it reeks of narcissism. There are better ways to assert yourself than to do all the corny things he has done on his self promotion website.

This is a deeply unfair, unreasonable and arguably abusive comment.

It's entirely reasonable to talk about yourself and your achievements on your resume, and Mr Mayes' site is rather a good example of doing so.

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#68

I honestly don't really see the value in a slidedeck, without the accompanying talk. It's the same as when someone proclaim: "Slides from this talk is available online", yeah that's not really any good without video or audio.

Idea: Neural network generated infinite sidedeck which appears to follow a coherent narrative, which is ever so slightly out of grasp.

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#69
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fortunately, there are new automated tools today that can do that automatically. can you please elaborate?

One very old tool for such things was called "stepwise regression". IIRC J. Tukey was partially involved in that. It appears that the AI/ML work is close to the regression and curve fitting going back strongly to the early days of computers in the 1960s and a lot in the social sciences back to the 1940s and even about 1900. A lot is known. E.g., there's the now classic Draper and Smith, Applied Regression Analysis .…

Thank you for the list of resources.

Are you able to go into more detail about your startup (problems it is solving)?

Re: Machine Learning 101 slidedeck: 2 years of headbanging, so you don't have to

#70
post #55
post #19

As someone who works with a lot of people new to machine learning, I appreciate guides like this. I especially like the early slides that help frame AI vs ML vs DL so that people can have a realistic understanding of what these technologies are for. For my part, one of the biggest realization I had after many years of applying machine learning was that I got too caught up in the machine learning algorithms themselves…

Don't you think people are, sometimes, just applying ML to their problem "because of hype" ? One example I have in mind, was a contest where participants were given a series of satellite pictures and asked to write a classifier to detect icebergs and cargo ships (the two are quite similar). As someone else pointed out, trying to use classical computer vision and machine learning on these images will always have some…

You wouldn't, and any data scientist worth their salt would recommend that the business choose the latter option.
Post reply on HN