YouTube search...
...Google search
Many products today leverage artificial intelligence for a wide range of industries, from healthcare to marketing. However, most business leaders who need to make strategic and procurement decisions about these technologies have no formal AI background or academic training in data science. The purpose of this article is to give business people with no AI expertise a general guideline on how to assess an AI-related product to help decide whether it is potentially relevant to their business. How to Assess an Artificial Intelligence Product or Solution (Even if You’re Not an AI Expert) | Daniel Faggella - Emerj
|
Evaluating AI- and ML-Based Security Products
Anup Ghosh, Founder and CEO, Invincea Liam Randall, President, Critical Stack, A Division of Capital One Chad Skipper, VP Competitive Intelligence and Product Testing, Cylance
Mike Spanbauer, Vice President of Research and Strategy, NSS Labs With endless AI or machine learning product claims, buyers are left bewildered with how to test these claims. It falls to independent third-party test organizations to develop and update traditional test protocols to test and validate AI and ML product capability claims. This panel will tackle the key issues that third-party testing must address to validate AI and ML security products.
|
|
|
|
How Should We Evaluate Machine Learning for AI?: Percy Liang
Machine learning has undoubtedly been hugely successful in driving progress in AI, but it implicitly brings with it the train-test evaluation paradigm. This standard evaluation only encourages behavior that is good on average; it does not ensure robustness as demonstrated by adversarial examples, and it breaks down for tasks such as dialogue that are interactive or do not have a correct answer. In this talk, I will describe alternative evaluation paradigms with a focus on natural language understanding tasks, and discuss ramifications for guiding progress in AI in meaningful directions. Percy Liang is an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University (B.S. from MIT, 2004; Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, 2011). His research spans machine learning and natural language processing, with the goal of developing trustworthy agents that can communicate effectively with people and improve over time through interaction. Specific topics include question answering, dialogue, program induction, interactive learning, and reliable machine learning. His awards include the IJCAI Computers and Thought Award (2016), an NSF CAREER Award (2016), a Sloan Research Fellowship (2015), and a Microsoft Research Faculty Fellowship (2014).
|
|
ML Test Score
- Machine Learning: The High Interest Credit Card of Technical Debt | | D. Sculley, G Holt, D. Golovin, E. Davydov, T. Phillips, D. Ebner, V. Chaudhary, and M. Young - Google Research
- Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems D. Sculley, G Holt, D. Golovin, E. Davydov, T. Phillips, D. Ebner, V. Chaudhary, M. Young, J. Crespo, and D. Dennison - Google Research
Creating reliable, production-level machine learning systems brings on a host of concerns not found in small toy examples or even large offline research experiments. Testing and monitoring are key considerations for ensuring the production-readiness of an ML system, and for reducing technical debt of ML systems. But it can be difficult to formulate specific tests, given that the actual prediction behavior of any given model is difficult to specify a priori. In this paper, we present 28 specific tests and monitoring needs, drawn from experience with a wide range of production ML systems to help quantify these issues and present an easy to follow road-map to improve production readiness and pay down ML technical debt. The ML Test Score: A Rubric for ML Production Readiness and Technical Debt Reduction | E. Breck, S. Cai, E. Nielsen, M. Salib, and D. Sculley - Google Research
|
ML Test Score (2) - Testing & Deployment - Full Stack Deep Learning
How can you test your machine learning system? A Rubric for Production Readiness and Technical Debt Reduction is an exhaustive framework/checklist from practitioners at Google.
- The paper presents a rubric as a set of 28 actionable tests and offers a scoring system to measure how ready for production a given machine learning system is. These are categorized into 4 sections: (1) data tests, (2) model tests, (3) ML infrastructure tests, and (4) monitoring tests. - The scoring system provides a vector for incentivizing ML system developers to achieve stable levels of reliability by providing a clear indicator of readiness and clear guidelines for how to improve.
|
|
|
|
What is Your ML Score? - Tania Allard
Developer Advocate at Microsoft Using machine learning in real-world applications and production systems is complex. Testing, monitoring, and logging are key considerations for assessing the decay, current status, and production-readiness of machine learning systems. Where do you get started? Who is responsible for testing and monitoring? I’ll discuss the most frequent issues encountered in real-life ML applications and how you can make systems more robust. I’ll also provide a rubric with actionable examples to ensure quality and adequacy of a model in production.
|
|
Buying
|
Build or buy AI? You're asking the wrong question
Evan Kohn, chief business officer and head of marketing at Pypestream, talks with Tonya Hall about why companies need to turn to staffing for AI and building data sets.
|
|
|
|
Why you should Buy Open-Source AI
Considering an AI assistant in your home? Before you auto-buy that pretty picture in front of you, be sure to check out the open-source offerings as well.
|
|