Daniella Dean, Microsoft data scientist:
We are starting to see people developing tools that put together all the different parts of – for example Azure ML is an attempt to put together a set of tools for gathering data, clean data and then analyzing it in a way that is repeatable and sharable and you like to call it “democratizing” the data science. We’re not there yet, as an industry, that anybody can do it but we’re trying to develop tools that will make it possible so that most people can do it without needing to have a PhD in statistics.
Looking forward to those tools – hope they arrive sooner rather than later.
And on TechCrunch:
Neural networks and deep learning aren’t new. In fact, the first artificial neural networks were created in the 1950s, and there have been multiple false starts since.This time, though, the abundance of labeled training data and compute power made it feasible to train these large models. Though AI research is still proceeding at a breakneck pace, fields like computer vision are starting to mature. Developers can choose from a variety of standardized model architectures, publicly available training data sets and tools. You no longer need a PhD just to get started. Technology is being democratized.
It’s time to start thinking about ways you can improve your applications by leveraging machine learning and edge computing. It doesn’t take a PhD in AI or years of experience to get started anymore — and if you don’t act quickly, you risk getting left behind.
Edge computing + LegalTech = 21st Century Attorney!
Follow a court’s order, or secure a stay and appeal…
Mr. Harris and Mr. Pettinato challenge the district court’s authority to enter the disclosure order. But even if the court had exceeded its authority, Mr. Harris and Mr. Pettinato would still have needed to comply with the disclosure order. If the two attorneys believed that the order had been unauthorized, they could have sought reconsideration or a writ; but they could not violate the order. See Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975) (“If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order is incorrect the remedy is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal.”).
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Assoc., No. 16-1348 (10th Cir. 2018).