Also, I hit a bug at the AI challenge which prevented me to pass it. So I had to spent at least 5-6 more tries to pass it.[2]
Fun, but wouldn't go near it again :)
Also, I hit a bug at the AI challenge which prevented me to pass it. So I had to spent at least 5-6 more tries to pass it.[2]
Fun, but wouldn't go near it again :)
The page is ~15 years old now, and I think it should be read as though its written by a 22 yr old, more reflecting on their recent university education than a guide to how to become a working mathematician.
---
With that note, I would say if someone is eager to engage in mathematics and statistics _at an undergrad level_ (at the time at my university, it was _unusual_ for people to pursue machine learning as a major, and it was in computer science school). I would recommend really focussing on Real Analysis, and the higher statistics courses, try to find the links and the commonality between the proofs and the key ideas. I would also tell myself to not to shy away from martingale theory and link it to measure theory.
Pure mathematics is a weird world. In the moment I hated myself for choosing it in undergrad, it absolutely tanked my grades because of the weird mental state I was in. At the same time when I got to my PhD/research everything starting really started to click. It's immensely difficult to digest and consume all the content in the 12-14 odd weeks that the coursework typically demands.
┌───────────────┬───────────┬──────────────┐
│ │ iteration │ no iteration │
├───────────────┼───────────┼──────────────┤
│ informative │ pragmatic │ subjective │
│ uninformative │ - │ objective │
└───────────────┴───────────┴──────────────┘
My main disagreement with this model is the empty bottom-left box - in fact, I think that's where most self-labeled Bayesians in industry fall:- Iterating on the functional form of the model (and therefore the assumed underlying data generating process) is generally considered obviously good and necessary, in my experience.
- Priors are usually uninformative or weakly informative, partly because data is often big enough to overwhelm the prior.
The need for iteration feels so obvious to me that the entire "no iteration" column feels like a straw man. But the author, who knows far more academic statisticians than I do, explicitly says that he had the same belief and "was shocked to learn that statisticians didn’t think this way."
I have a feeling I'm just totally barking up the wrong tree, but don't know where my thinking/understanding is just off.
No one outside of the actuarial industry cares or really knows what it means to be an actuary. Having an actuarial background in non-traditional actuarial areas is almost more of a curse than a blessing as people don't really know what to do with you. Furthermore actuaries seem to demand a premium for a cohort that don't have strong enough grounding to do ML research or enough development chops to be an ML engineer. So you end up competing with other people in the data science field...It really is a weird position to be in.
They sincerely believed that when (e.g.) Cantonese speakers read and wrote, they were not wholesale translating from and to Mandarin, but simply, when writing, transcribing Cantonese using the universal ideographic calligraphy.
In fact, writing in dialect languages is not taught. The extremely elaborate system dictating which of usually several, often many syllabary characters that sound identical must be used in writing a word in Mandarin (very commonly mistaken for ideographic writing) cannot work for the other sinitic languages.
(Sinitic languages admit about 1200 distinct syllables, but the syllabary writing system uses many times that number, so many necessarily sound alike. Mandarin speakers are taught that the characters are not merely syllables with attached historical rules, but ideograms that represent distinct thoughts. (Numerous just-so examples are used to support the notion.) This has often led to belief that ancient documents using the characters could be read and understood without deep knowledge of the actual language and world of the writer, resulting in, at best, comical translations.)
Though I would also say that people also appreciate the nuances. There are comedic sketches on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK51dlpqpSE (~5.30)
This definitely isn't sufficient for machine learning, but it is a start.
"Specifically, there were no systems in place to build reliable, uniform, and reproducible pipelines for creating and managing training and prediction data at scale. Prior to Michelangelo, it was not possible to train models larger than what would fit on data scientists’ desktop machines, and there was neither a standard place to store the results of training experiments nor an easy way to compare one experiment to another."
Seems like h2o.ai fits a lot of that bill.
Supports MPS (Metal Performance Shaders). Using something that skips Python entirely along with a mlx or gguf converted model file (if one exists) will likely be even faster.