3 ms·
Interesting thoughts about Software 2.0 IDEs at the end. A desirable property of such a tool (I think) is having a short feedback loop. However, it seems to me
by meken 8y ago
Interesting thoughts about Software 2.0 IDEs at the end. A desirable property of such a tool (I think) is having a short feedback loop. However, it seems to me that common changes would include re-labeling a significant portion of your data set (e.g. because you realize you need a new class that you didn't think of when you began labeling), and retraining the model. It seems like transfer learning/fine-tuning can alleviate the latter problem some.
Also an interesting take on how complexity has shifted from architecture selection to labeling data. It makes me wonder if there won't be a "Software 3.0" where most of the complexity shifts from creating a good labeling schema to, say, deciding on a good evaluation metric (I think the buck stops here as I can't imagine an AI silver-bullet automatically determining the evaluation metric). Perhaps unsupervised learning will come to the rescue and free us from the complexities of label schema design.
- FLUX-YOU 8y ago>deciding on a good evaluation metric Have two or more labeling teams labeling the same stuff so you can reach a consensus or flag the differences and review and figure out why there was a difference. Humans will be doing this for a while, I think it's worth having large companies (as large as Goog/Amzn/MS/FB) dedicated to the task.