Why software engineering processes and tools don’t work for machine learning

Re:Why software engineering processes and tools don’t work f... by fizixer on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @06:47PM (#24782613)

This is a nitpick on "... not a single ..." claim by GP.

GP is otherwise right. First figure in the article is a joke. And that makes the article a joke.

Plenty of waterfalls out there. Even more non-waterfalls, aware of iterative, modern process, who will kick you out of the discussion if you try to sell them waterfall.

ML processes need innovation over those of traditional s/w dev. This article is the worst place on the internet to look for that innovation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why software engineering processes and tools don’t work f... by sjg007 on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @07:23PM (#24782923)

Plenty of waterfalls in ML pipelines as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why software engineering processes and tools don’t work f... by fuzzfactor on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:42AM (#24785562)

The circular chart example given for Machine Learning is virtually identical to a cycle of continuous improvement in a service or manufacturing operation, except for one little detail,

with Continuous Improvement you don't want the minimum viable product, you want the Maximum Viable Product.

Seems like a machine learning outfit would really benefit from a leader who is smarter to begin with, a better learner, and already more skilled in the task that you want the machine to do.

[ Parent | on HN ]