|
The first course I had to take as part of my computer science Master’s was a compulsory course on algorithms. Regardless of whether you were a data scientist, like myself, specialising in machine learning, or a software engineer specialising in computer systems, everyone had to take it - and for good reason. Because algorithms are the building blocks of everything technology professionals do, much like how protein bases are the building blocks for all things biological. The AI era hasn’t changed this. But it has brought with it a new set of building blocks, in the form of AI agents. These agents represent a fundamental shift in the data science toolkit, taking data scientists from writers of passive code to developers of autonomous systems. Yet, algorithms haven’t gone away. They’re still there, embedded within the agents. And there’s now a danger that data scientists will stop thinking algorithmically, and instead reach for LLMs to solve every problem they encounter, even when a simpler, algorithmic solution would do better. Dr Imran Ahmad, author of 30 Agents Every AI Engineer Must Build and 50 Algorithms Every Programmer Should Know, has seen this firsthand. In the latest episode of Value Driven Data Science, Imran joins me to explore the shift from algorithms to agents and what it means for how data scientists should be thinking about their role. You’ll discover:
Using an LLM for everything is the lazy solution. This episode is about knowing when not to. Listen now on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or click the link below: Episode 127: From Algorithms to Agents and What It Means for Data Science Talk again soon, Dr Genevieve Hayes |
Twice weekly, I share proven strategies to help data scientists get noticed, promoted, and valued. No theory — just practical steps to transform your technical expertise into business impact and the freedom to call your own shots.
After the latest wave of headlines about the pending AI apocalypse, I spent an afternoon trying to work out whether I should panic. I watched videos explaining how AI could destroy us all, and others arguing that AI is a scam that will collapse the economy once everyone realises. It felt a lot like watching The Terminator and The Big Short back to back. Both of these scenarios can't simultaneously be true, and after hearing them out, I don't think either is. AI's value has already been proven...
Suppose you asked AI to design an engine that pulls static electricity from the atmosphere so the engine can run without any other fuel, whatsoever. It would certainly give you a result and that result would sound very convincing. In fact, it might read like a mash-up of your high school physics text and the plots from various science fiction stories - because that’s exactly what it would be. Designing such an engine would literally involve creating a new branch of physics and AI can’t create...
Last month, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay calling for stronger AI regulation and a slower pace of AI development. Since then, two incidents have made his case for him. In the first, the US military almost started a war based on the contents of a confidently wrong AI-generated intelligence report. In the second, OpenAI disclosed that its agent hacked into Australia's Medicare website during training and accessed data that, although not sensitive, had yet to be publicly...