this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Machine Learning
1 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
- Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
- Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
- Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
- Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People talk a lot about datasets being "rich" and "diverse," but I wish they would also mentioned "not full of crap" in the same breath. Whether it be AI or humans, garbage-in, garbage-out still applies. You can have a rich and diverse dataset that teaches AI horrific, terrible ideas and practices.
We know with humans you get a very different effect based on the quality of the teacher and the teaching material, and we know that a bad teacher teaching bad lessons can be even worse than nothing at all. AI isn't really that different.
Was at a big data industry conference yesterday, and one of the big takeaways was that data quality is going to be critical in the age of genAI.