“When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
blog.strafenet.com
“When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#2Sometimes I get the feeling that when we had less data, we were forced to think harder and more daringly.
I feel we lack new groundbreaking theoretical framework because of this.
I don't know if Newton's law's would jump out of the paper if you simply threw a ball at one million different vectors.
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#3Sometimes I get the feeling that when we had less data, we were forced to think harder and more daringly. I feel we lack new groundbreaking theoretical framework because of this. I don't know if Newton's law's would jump out of the paper if you simply threw a ball at one million different vectors.
I recently visited the Galapagos Islands. There are 2 things that made it possible for Darwin to work out his theory after visiting here.
1. Remoteness of location - few outside influences 2. Relatively few species!
Even though it's on the equator, the islands aren't all jungle and animals. The sheer lack of different species made it possible to see every single one of them in a single visit, and allowed Darwin to theorize without thinking he missed something.
Sometimes, simplicity helps with focus
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#4Sometimes I get the feeling that when we had less data, we were forced to think harder and more daringly. I feel we lack new groundbreaking theoretical framework because of this. I don't know if Newton's law's would jump out of the paper if you simply threw a ball at one million different vectors.
On the bright side with so many people online and with different perspectives, it becomes easier to expose flaws, mediocre interpretations, etc.
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#5Sometimes I get the feeling that when we had less data, we were forced to think harder and more daringly. I feel we lack new groundbreaking theoretical framework because of this. I don't know if Newton's law's would jump out of the paper if you simply threw a ball at one million different vectors.
Well, use data at large scale is the new groundbreaking theoretical framework. And it's practical too.
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#6When data is easy to collect, someone will ask you to collect it and someone else will query the data and compile a report with percentages in it. Then someone else will worry about some of the percentages being less or more than some benchmark. Then your work life will become less happy.
Example 1: Some years ago, I had to sit through a meeting where a committee worried about a 2% drop in satisfaction scores on a student questionnaire. No-one checked how many replies were involved (around 400, so it worked out to about 6 people less in the second year than the first as the ratings were something like 75%).
Example 2: I recently had to add comments in a record system about students whose attendance percentage had dropped below 90%. That was 8 weeks into the course...
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#7Naive Bayes: the "good enough" classifier.
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#8This is pretty much the same conclusion Ilya Grigorik (founder of postrank, which was recently bought by Google) came to: http://vimeo.com/22513786
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#9Looking at the video, you could interpret his statement two ways. Either, the headline - “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever” OR the sort-of-opposite - "AI has made so little progress that we don't anything much better than naive Bayes"
Re: “When you have enough data, sometimes, you don’t have to be too clever”
#10Sometimes I get the feeling that when we had less data, we were forced to think harder and more daringly. I feel we lack new groundbreaking theoretical framework because of this. I don't know if Newton's law's would jump out of the paper if you simply threw a ball at one million different vectors.
On the other hand, a lot of new research (including possibly ground-breaking theoretical results) are only possible now that we have access to large data.
We might be initially processing the large data using relatively simple techniques, but on the reduced data, we can now run more sophisticated methods that actually work because the underlying data comes from a huge number of samples.
As but one example, in computer vision, the concept of "attributes" -- automatically labeling objects using descriptive words instead of categorical ones, i.e., "this thing is like..." rather than "this thing is..." -- has opened the door to a number of exciting advances. One is the concept of "zero-shot learning": automatically recognizing an object that you've never seen an instance of before simply via a description. For example, one could recognize beavers as "small, four-legged furry rodents with big teeth and a flat tail", without having ever seen a beaver before. The training data for this classifier need not include beavers, but only images which match the individual attributes, not necessarily all in the same image -- small, four-legged, furry, rodent, big teeth, flat tail.
This kind of thing was not really possible before, because there just wasn't enough data to train reliable classifiers for each attribute in any kind of automated way.
Finally, as I alluded to at the beginning, these individual attribute classifiers are often relatively simple algorithms, such as Support Vector Machines (SVMs). Yet, the 2nd-stage algorithms that use the attribute values to do something useful, such as the zero-shot learning application described above, are often much more involved/advanced techniques.