Early scientific fields are often quite qualitative and become more quantitative as they mature. For example, discovering cells is a qualitative result, which can then mature (over many decades) into quantitative tools like counting white blood cells in cancer research. Discovering chemical spectral lines was a qualitative result, which only really became quantitative when Bohr realized that the "butterfly wings of atoms" gave insight into electron orbitals.
The vast majority of researchers are trained in mature disciplines, because genuinely new scientific fields are rare. These mature disciplines have established paradigms, with established quantitative measures and methods. But interpretability is not a mature field. It doesn't have an established paradigm. Even the most basic abstractions (does it make sense to think of a model in terms of "features"?) are up for debate.
There's a risk that our training from mature fields may give us the wrong instincts if we translate them into such an early, messy, unestablished science. In particular, we should expect to need to be guided a lot more by qualitative results.
To be clear, this isn't saying we should not do quantitative research when appropriate! And in fact, often these can be synergistic, with qualitative research helping us be confident we're using the right quantitative tools. (The line between them can also be blurry!) Rather, the goal of this note is simply to argue that qualitative results should genuinely be seen as first class citizens, and something we want to keep returning to as a touchstone to avoid becoming lost or fooling ourselves.
댓글 영역
획득법
① NFT 발행
작성한 게시물을 NFT로 발행하면 일주일 동안 사용할 수 있습니다. (최초 1회)
② NFT 구매
다른 이용자의 NFT를 구매하면 한 달 동안 사용할 수 있습니다. (구매 시마다 갱신)
사용법
디시콘에서지갑연결시 바로 사용 가능합니다.