Wellll... A few weeks back I started working on a tutorial for our lab's Code Club on how to make shitty graphs. It was too dispiriting and I balked. A twitter workshop with figures and code:

Tips for AI writers:

1. Spend 30% of your effort on skimming all student ML papers (e.g. Stanford NLP CS224n) the past 3 years and prototype your favorites

The idea is everything. Pick an area you are interested in and ideally something that has a visual aspect to it

Most of my 'on the top of my mind' ideas were bad in retrospect. Skimming 100s of student papers will give you an overview of what's interesting.

Student papers are overlooked, easy to understand, and have good compute constraints.

2. Spend 30% on your effort on coding

Create an edge to the project. Apply it to something new and use FastAI or Keras to improve the accuracy with 5-30%.

3. Spend 30% writing an in-depth article

Have a north star article in terms of structure and quality. Find something that stretches you to your utmost capability. I used @copingbear’s Style transfer article:

4. Spend 10% marketing your project

Invest a week in studying the strategies to rank on sites like HN and Reddit, then use them. If you have an interesting result and a great article, you've done the hard work.

On Bayesianism, the Many Worlds Interpretation, and personal identity.

Some thoughts worked out in a letter to a friend, which is the kind of thing you do when off Twitter for a glorious week. (🧵)

“Chance is ignorance”—the Bayesian story; all probabilities represent states of mind, not states of the world. One *could* put (some) chances “in the world”, but let’s take Occam’s Razor seriously...

That the probability of a fair coin coming up heads is 50% simply means that marginalizing (tracing, as the physicists say) over the hidden facts leaves you, nearly, maximally ignorant of the outcome.

Quantum uncertainty (access below!) poses an apparent challenge to this story. There seems to be nothing to be ignorant about when it comes to (say) electron spin—there is nothing “inside” the

The electron is a simple object, in other words. So where does the uncertainty come from? One could follow David Wallace’s wonderful interpretation in terms of chaotic dynamics and decoherence, but let’s see if we can take another route...

Tired of word clouds? Want to do better sentiment analysis? Not sure how to look at the words underneath your measures?

Our long overdue paper on generalized word shift graphs is finally here!
https://t.co/lIBXvbMJWX
https://t.co/vSL1REYT8V

So what are they?

1/n

If we have two texts, there are many ways we can compare them. Weighted averages are a particularly useful measure because they're flexible and interpretable

Proportions, Shannon entropy, the KLD, the JSD, and dictionary methods can all be written as weighted averages

2/n

But weighted avgs are also slippery. When we try to compress complex phenomena like happiness, surprise, divergence, or diversity into a single number, it can be unclear what we're measuring

If the measure goes up, what does that mean? Why did it do that? Can we trust it?

3/n

Very often, that's the end of the line and we're left with an uneasy feeling in the pit of our stomach that our weighted avg is actually picking up a data artifact or some other unintended peculiarity

Word shift graphs help us address those concerns

4/n

First, word shifts look under the hood of weighted averages to see what's going on

All weighted averages are a sum of contributions from individual words. We can pull out those words, and rank which ones contribute the most to the difference between two texts

5/n