Machine Learning is about solving a task by automatically learning patterns based on examples and trying to generalize to new data. Granted, it's not necessarily the best approach to understand deeply how a phenomenon occurs.
You could use a black box model if you're more interested in predicting correctly images of handwritten digits than in understanding how the pixels relate to each other.
Of course, usually people want both accuracy and interpretability. It boils down to understanding what's more important for the problem at hand and making the compromises accordingly.
It's not that accuracy will always be sacrificed if one wants an explainable model. The point is: if interpretability is an important constraint, it could prevent improvements on accuracy.
Sometimes, the best interpretable model is as good as a black box, and that's great.
When this is not the case, the trade-off is that one should see what's more important for the actual problem. Perhaps interpretability is not a big deal.
Another solution is to try to extract interpretability from the more accurate black box model with something like SHAP.
This is a great point. There is a general lack of understanding about what it means for models to be interpretable & explainable. These words get thrown around often by people who don't understand the definition, and also the trade off with accuracy.
Assuming it's céu as in the Portuguese word for sky, it's pronounced as /sɛw/ (in Brazilian Portuguese, at least). It sounds similar to "sell", only ending in /w/ rather than /l/.
I agree. He was in every news TV show, including the biggest of them "Jornal Nacional". Also very good coverage of IMPA, the math institute behind his education.
But sure, now with the sad news about Eduardo Campos he will be nowhere to be seen. I hope in the next months and years he is remembered and popularized (is that a word?).
This is a really nice puzzle! I didn't know William Wu wrote a paper about it. I saw it many years ago on William Wu's riddles site[1] (highly recommended). It's one of the most popular problems there. The original thread[2] in the forum has 25 pages, covering lots of approaches. There is also another thread[3] summarizing the discussion.
reminds of the good times i had with wuriddles in high school. definitely wasted many hours talking about the 100 prisoner problem and its variants with others back then. another one i liked was the sink the sub one
Though they do share a whole lot. It would be like making a phone rectangular with a touch screen and a home button. Obviously everything inside your phone is completely original, but because they look vaguely similar, you've violated your twin's copyright.
It seems to me that the extent to which monozygotic twins do not have the same DNA would be comparable to the extent that clones would not.
Wikipedia indicates that the number of differences averages in the low hundreds, surely with such a low number there would remain plenty of parts that remain truly identical. For the purposes of a twin suing a twin for patent infringement, couldn't we just assume one of the many unchanged portions was patented, not the entirety?
