MHB Data Science and Systems Integration Blog Post

AI Thread Summary
The discussion emphasizes the importance of data handling and the challenges faced by experts in maintaining a fresh perspective when analyzing data. It highlights the difficulty of empathizing with those less knowledgeable due to the internal assumptions formed through experience. The conversation advocates for a bottom-up approach in system design, arguing that while some guidance is beneficial, excessive direction can lead to user frustration. There is a debate about the merits of top-down versus bottom-up design, with one participant questioning whether a top-down approach can be valid if it involves using the same data for both hypothesis generation and testing. The need for a balance in documentation that is both concise and adequate is also raised, underscoring the complexities of effective communication in data-driven environments.
Ackbach
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
93
Really excited about this blog post by yours truly. Wineman Technology is going places!
 
Technology news on Phys.org
Interesting article!

I work with large amounts of data every day and would consider myself an expert in the field when considering the whole continuum of "Can't use a computer" to "Coding at Google". I grab data, clean it, join it, model it, and present it.

That is important to your point, because what I lose in my years of training is the ability to see data and a problem with new eyes. Once you know something, you can try to empathize with the mind of someone who doesn't know it but it is quite difficult. Even worse, you can be very unaware of the facts that you internally assume everyone must know yet they don't.

So I fully agree with you that systems benefit from building bottom-up, not top-down. Some guidance is helpful but too much will leave the end user clueless and frustrated.
 
Jameson said:
Interesting article!

I work with large amounts of data every day and would consider myself an expert in the field when considering the whole continuum of "Can't use a computer" to "Coding at Google". I grab data, clean it, join it, model it, and present it.

That is important to your point, because what I lose in my years of training is the ability to see data and a problem with new eyes. Once you know something, you can try to empathize with the mind of someone who doesn't know it but it is quite difficult.

Yeah, yeah. Total nerd. I get it. ;)

Jameson said:
Even worse, you can be very unaware of the facts that you internally assume everyone must know yet they don't.

So I fully agree with you that systems benefit from building bottom-up, not top-down.

I'm a hair puzzled. I thought I was advocating for a top-down design approach, which is simply what a typical statistics textbook will tell you. If you have an hypothesis at hand (big question, in the parlance of my blog post), then you can design the system that generates the data that, once analyzed, answers the hypothesis or question. Isn't that a top-down design approach? It is considered "cheating", is it not, to use the same data to generate an hypothesis as well as to test it?

Jameson said:
Some guidance is helpful but too much will leave the end user clueless and frustrated.

I'm very curious what you mean here. Are you talking about achieving that difficult-to-achieve balance in documentation between conciseness and adequacy?

Cheers!

By the way, I LOVE THE QUOTE-BREAKER!
 
Thread 'Star maps using Blender'
Blender just recently dropped a new version, 4.5(with 5.0 on the horizon), and within it was a new feature for which I immediately thought of a use for. The new feature was a .csv importer for Geometry nodes. Geometry nodes are a method of modelling that uses a node tree to create 3D models which offers more flexibility than straight modeling does. The .csv importer node allows you to bring in a .csv file and use the data in it to control aspects of your model. So for example, if you...
I tried a web search "the loss of programming ", and found an article saying that all aspects of writing, developing, and testing software programs will one day all be handled through artificial intelligence. One must wonder then, who is responsible. WHO is responsible for any problems, bugs, deficiencies, or whatever malfunctions which the programs make their users endure? Things may work wrong however the "wrong" happens. AI needs to fix the problems for the users. Any way to...
Back
Top