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

communick@academy.garden

[D] What are people working on when they say they work on Causal ML? (alien.top)

submitted 1 year ago by poitrenaud@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Genuinely trying to understand.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] abbot-probability@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

It's situational, but yes.

Imagine you offer two membership tiers. You notice that people in the higher tier spend much more money with you. Yay!

Question: is the additional spend caused by (the fringe benefits of) the higher tier? If so, if you gave people a complementary upgrade, they'd spend more money with you. Win win. Or maybe people with more money to spend naturally tend to go for the higher tier, in which case your intervention will come to naught.

In this case, it's easy to run an A/B test and find out. But in a lot of cases applying this kind of intervention can be difficult (because of cost, signal delay, amount of additional confounders) or downright immoral.