madman2890
Why Most Valuable AI Systems Are Still Tabular Models
The Hard Part of Predictive AI Isn’t the ModelI’ve spent most of my career building predictive systems on tabular data.The highest-value AI systems I’ve seen in production aren’t LLMs. They’re predictive models that operate on structured operational data: customers, orders, shipments, transactions, support events, etc.These systems quietly generate millions in value by replacing expensive...
Predictive AI with graphs and tabular foundation models
Tabular data is the frontier – graphs can help
Even in 2026, most of the work in tabular predictive AI still has very little to do with the model itself. Whether you're using CatBoost, XGBoost, or newer tabular foundation models like TabPFN, the .fit() step is usually the smallest part of the workflow.The real time sink is everything before that. Most real-world predictive problems live across many relational tables. So the majority of the...
Tabular Foundation Models Still Need One Thing: Multi-Table Aggregation
Library for feature engineering across many table using graphs
Feature Engineering Abstractions with Graphs
Best way to get started while docs are still lacking: https://github.com/wesmadrigal/GraphReduce/blob/master/examp...
Show HN: built a feature engineering interface based on graphs
If you're a male under 40 years old your risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccines. Not to mention, if you don't have co-morbidities, your risk of death from COVID is quite low. It's a simple cost benefit analysis, really. According to a linked study (ahajournals.org link), risk of cardiac related issues from vaccine for males under 40, like myself, is 1/10000 or 0.0001. Risk of cardiac related issues from covid-19 for males under 40 is about 0.0000016, so about a factor of 6 lower risk. Additionally, as we know from more recent studies, especially with the Kraken XBB variant, vaccines offer virtually no protection and almost everyone will get infected. So we can code probability of infection post-vaccination and post-natural infection as equal for the sake of simplicity. Additionally, there is a growing body of research discussing reinfection issues during a subsequent infection by vaccination status, and the latest numbers I extracted from the paper are coded below. In summary, for me, a 32 year old male, we get the following risks profiles:
vaccine risk = P(problem | vaccine, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | vaccine immunity) * P(problem second infection | vaccine immunity) vaccine risk = 0.0001 * 0.95 * 0.51 vaccine risk = 0.000004845
natural immunity risk = P(problem | covid-19, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | natural immunity) * P(problem second infection | natural immunity) natural immunity risk = 0.0000016 * 0.95 * 0.47 natural immunity risk = 0.00000007144
vaccine risk vs. natural risk
67X more risky (FOR ME)
Myocarditis risk vaccines vs. natural immunity males under 40: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.1...
XBB 1.5 Kraken likelihood of infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36580913/
Serious issues associated with subsequent infection by vaccination status: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
" Discussion
Our study shows that the mRNA-containing LNP vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 induce high anti-S1 IgG and IgA levels in the blood as well as in the saliva, but these Ig levels steadily decrease over time and approach levels that are comparable to the long-term levels induced by two immunizations with the adenovirus-based vaccine AZD1222. In the long run, such pronounced anti-S1 IgG and (s)IgA reductions in the saliva likely reflect the declining protection against infection and from spreading in the respiratory tract of naïve individuals (16, 17). On the other hand, the observed stronger anti-S1 (s)IgA response in the saliva of previously infected vaccinees – likely generated by re-activation of infection-induced local (s)IgA+ memory B cells – might explain their recently described higher protection from infection and spreading "
These sections indicate that natural immunity is more effective at preventing infection and spread of COVID-19 than vaccines.
"In summary, the data indicate that the high initial mRNA vaccine-induced anti-S1 IgG(1) and IgA responses decrease over time and approach levels induced with the adenovirus-based vaccine up to day 270. Higher and more stable anti-S1 (s)IgA levels in the saliva of pre-infected vaccinees might explain their higher protection from infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Intriguingly, the mRNA vaccines, and in particular the mRNA-1273 vaccine, induced increasing long-term anti-S1 serum IgG4 levels in naïve individuals with hitherto unclear influences on the fight against the pathogen. Naïve individuals vaccinated with the adenovirus-based vaccine did not show such long-term anti-S1 IgG4 response at least after two vaccinations until day 270. "