4 ms·
I agree with your last remark. Regardless of the letter of the law, any ML researcher who could possibly win such competition should clearly understand its spi
by ryporter 11y ago
I agree with your last remark. Regardless of the letter of the law, any ML researcher who could possibly win such competition should clearly understand its spirit. They had to know that they were training on the test data, a cardinal sin in machine learning.
- seiji 11y agojust growth hacking a competition, right?
- chestervonwinch 11y agoExactly. This is machine learning chapter 0 stuff. To think a team of machine learning (most likely) PhDs innocently misinterpreted the rules is naive. More likely, I imagine the researchers felt pressured to obtain results significantly enough to let their morals take the sidecar.
- p4wnc6 11y agoEspecially when you consider that the first failure mode should be to ask for clarification if you are unsure. It's completely unreasonable for them to claim they read the rules, and upon their singular reading of the rule, they were completely sure that the limit was for individual participants and not whole teams. That there was not even any microscopic amount of doubt that maybe, just maybe, it was for whole teams. This sounds like they are trying to cover their malicious intent with an "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission" kind of trick.