3 ms·

Hard to say without having taken these classes. GT isn't Stanford but a top 10 MSCS that offers an ML specialization for ~$8k-$10k. Whether that provides more

by nkozyra 10y ago

Hard to say without having taken these classes. GT isn't Stanford but a top 10 MSCS that offers an ML specialization for ~$8k-$10k. Whether that provides more value or employment opportunity I cannot say, but it is encouraging to see more to universities offering an alternative to traditional degree programs. I think there's a path for non-MS, non-PhD backgrounds, but probably not now. Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. So until they learn practical application I think supply will outnumber demand and most of the jobs will go to PhD AI/statistics backgrounds.

mindcrime 10y ago
Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. I would say just the opposite. There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That is, assuming you acknowledge that there's more to ML/AI than "deep learning". Not everybody needs a deep neural network. Sometimes you just need linear regression or a random forest. If you come at it from that point of view, the knowledge you gain from taking Andrew Ng's machine learning course is enough to create value for companies / organizations. A lot of the discussions on this topic here on HN seem to be based on an assumption that you have to be doing cutting edge original research to be useful. I think that's very far from the case. Now the problem is, does the mom and pop bakery on the corner know that they could benefit from ML? And perhaps the more salient question is "are they looking for somebody to do ML for them"? The answer is probably "no" in both cases, so you might have to do some work to sell to that market. But the value you can create is real. Help them optimize production so they throw away less bread on slow days, etc. and you're talking direct business impact. I suspect that there will be, for a long time, a wide continuum in terms of how ML/AI skills can help create value. Which means there will be a lot of ways to leverage this field from a career standpoint.
- nkozyra 10y ago
  > There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That's not exactly what I'm saying. There are ML problems everywhere, opportunities to create efficiencies, new products, etc. out of existing data and processes. But nobody hires an AI/ML candidate to come in and tell them what to do. Nobody says "we want to dabble in ML somehow but don't have any pressing needs, can you start at $140K?" Those businesses need to recognize the opportunities first before the market will expand.
  - xyzzy123 10y ago
    You might be be surprised. Not all of the opportunities are reasonable (or make any kind of sense at all) but if you take a shitty hire at a place with interesting data you can have fun. I can hardly count the number of organisations which now want to project the idea of being "innovative" and are excited to slap the coconut shells over their ears and try waving down planes with a stick. There's still a surprisingly huge number of companies still hiring "blockchain consultants" even though they're rapidly heading into the "despair" phase of the hype cycle. If you're a low cap stock or even a tired brick and mortar, two ML hires and a plausible investor story gives your graph a serious bump. The difference between blockchain bull()$& and ML bull()$& that is the ML could actually have legs. Mostly it'll just tell you stuff that someone who understands market actually knew though.
    - nkozyra 10y ago
      While I believe that, it sure sounds like a miserable job for people who actually want to do cool things with data. Hired for show likely means you're still hunting for that problem (which might not exist).

by nkozyra 10y ago

mindcrime 10y ago

Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. I would say just the opposite. There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That is, assuming you acknowledge that there's more to ML/AI than "deep learning". Not everybody needs a deep neural network. Sometimes you just need linear regression or a random forest. If you come at it from that point of view, the knowledge you gain from taking Andrew Ng's machine learning course is enough to create value for companies / organizations. A lot of the discussions on this topic here on HN seem to be based on an assumption that you have to be doing cutting edge original research to be useful. I think that's very far from the case. Now the problem is, does the mom and pop bakery on the corner know that they could benefit from ML? And perhaps the more salient question is "are they looking for somebody to do ML for them"? The answer is probably "no" in both cases, so you might have to do some work to sell to that market. But the value you can create is real. Help them optimize production so they throw away less bread on slow days, etc. and you're talking direct business impact. I suspect that there will be, for a long time, a wide continuum in terms of how ML/AI skills can help create value. Which means there will be a lot of ways to leverage this field from a career standpoint.

nkozyra 10y ago
> There isn't a business too small to benefit from ML/AI. That's not exactly what I'm saying. There are ML problems everywhere, opportunities to create efficiencies, new products, etc. out of existing data and processes. But nobody hires an AI/ML candidate to come in and tell them what to do. Nobody says "we want to dabble in ML somehow but don't have any pressing needs, can you start at $140K?" Those businesses need to recognize the opportunities first before the market will expand.
- xyzzy123 10y ago
  You might be be surprised. Not all of the opportunities are reasonable (or make any kind of sense at all) but if you take a shitty hire at a place with interesting data you can have fun. I can hardly count the number of organisations which now want to project the idea of being "innovative" and are excited to slap the coconut shells over their ears and try waving down planes with a stick. There's still a surprisingly huge number of companies still hiring "blockchain consultants" even though they're rapidly heading into the "despair" phase of the hype cycle. If you're a low cap stock or even a tired brick and mortar, two ML hires and a plausible investor story gives your graph a serious bump. The difference between blockchain bull()$& and ML bull()$& that is the ML could actually have legs. Mostly it'll just tell you stuff that someone who understands market actually knew though.
  - nkozyra 10y ago
    While I believe that, it sure sounds like a miserable job for people who actually want to do cool things with data. Hired for show likely means you're still hunting for that problem (which might not exist).