*NOTE*: You will now get the XAI course for free if you sign up (not the SHAP course) SHAP course: adataodyssey.com/courses/shap-with-python/ XAI course: adataodyssey.com/courses/xai-with-python/ Newsletter signup: mailchi.mp/40909011987b/signup
Hi buddy I learnt shap from you but I am facing some issues, I am trying to plot any graph then I am getting a common error, Error- "The beeswarm/waterfall plot requires an explanation object as the shap values argument " Cab you please help me buddy. Thanks
Love this topic. Subscribed. I build evaluation frameworks for ML models in industry. Most ML scientists I deal with are trying to replicate the "science" they see in academic ML research. Explaining how it works isn't that much of a priority by stakeholders or the scientists until something goes wrong. Hence people's acceptance of a "black box". Saying to both groups that they should be more "scientific" will probably not go that well, even if you explain to them what "true" science is. Part of the reason is that the word "science" itself is at this point pretty stigmatized due to fraud and replication issues across science (good channel -> www.youtube.com/@PeteJudo1). I find fear-mongering more effective + showing an outline of a robust framework looks like.
*NOTE*: You will now get the XAI course for free if you sign up (not the SHAP course)
SHAP course: adataodyssey.com/courses/shap-with-python/
XAI course: adataodyssey.com/courses/xai-with-python/
Newsletter signup: mailchi.mp/40909011987b/signup
Hi buddy
I learnt shap from you but I am facing some issues, I am trying to plot any graph then I am getting a common error,
Error- "The beeswarm/waterfall plot requires an explanation object as the shap values argument "
Cab you please help me buddy.
Thanks
Love this topic. Subscribed. I build evaluation frameworks for ML models in industry. Most ML scientists I deal with are trying to replicate the "science" they see in academic ML research. Explaining how it works isn't that much of a priority by stakeholders or the scientists until something goes wrong. Hence people's acceptance of a "black box". Saying to both groups that they should be more "scientific" will probably not go that well, even if you explain to them what "true" science is. Part of the reason is that the word "science" itself is at this point pretty stigmatized due to fraud and replication issues across science (good channel -> www.youtube.com/@PeteJudo1). I find fear-mongering more effective + showing an outline of a robust framework looks like.
Thanks Kyler! By fear-mongering do you mean "we must follow best principles else we will lose a lot of money!"?