alt Hacker NewsThese are good practices to keep in mind when setting up GenAI solutions, but I'm not convinced that this part of the job will allow "data scientist" as a profession to thrive. Here's my pessimistic take.
Data scientists were appreciated largely because of their ability to create models that unlock business value. Model creation was a dark magic that you needed strong mathematical skills to perform - or at least that's the image, even if in reality you just slap XGBoost on a problem and call it a day. Data scientists were enablers and value creators.
With GenAI, value creation is apparently done by the LLM provider and whoever in your company calls the API, which could really be any engineering team. Coaxing the right behavior out of the LLM is a bit of black magic in itself, but it's not something that requires deep mathematical knowledge. Knowing how gradients are calculated in a decoder-only transformer doesn't really help you make the LLM follow instructions. In fact, all your business stakeholders are constantly prompting chatbots themselves, so even if you provide some expertise here they will just see you as someone doing the same thing they do when they summarize an email.
So that leaves the part the OP discusses: evaluation and monitoring. These are not sexy tasks and from the point of view of business stakeholders they are not the primary value add. In fact, they are barriers that get in the way of taking the POC someone slapped together in Copilot (it works!) and putting that solution in production. It's not even strictly necessary if you just want to move fast and break things. Appreciation for this kind of work is most present in large risk-averse companies, but even there it can be tricky to convince management that this is a job that needs to be done by a highly paid statistician with a graduate degree.
What's the way forward? Convince management that people with the job title "data scientist" should be allowed to gatekeep building LLM solutions? Maybe I'm overestimating how good the average AI-aware software engineer is at this stuff, but I don't see the professional moat.
Replies
I agree. It is difficult to convince leadership to do this work at all ("it works on my example, ship it"), and in my experience most DS don't even want to do it.
One of the key value is that it forces some thinking about what is the task you want to solve in the first place. In many cases, it is difficult if not impossible to do it, which implies the underlying product should not be built at all. But nobody wants to hear that.
Doing eval only makes sense if making the product better impacts something the business cares about, which is very difficult to do in practice.
I agree with your take.
I don't really see why evals are assumed to be exclusively in the domain of data scientists. In my experience SWEs-turned-AI Engineers are much better suited to building agents. Some struggle more than others, but "evals as automated tests" is, imo, so obvious a mental model, and can be so well adapted to by good SWEs, that data scientists have no real role on many "agent" projects.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it's what I'm observing in practice.
For context, I'm a SWE-turned-AI Engineer, so I may be biased :)
You recognize that you haven't really needed strong mathematical (or coding) skills to create models for some time. Data Scientists add value by knowing how to translate business speak into XGBoost type model and interesting XGBoost model results into business speak. And, frankly, often by being some of the smartest people in the room. The math is occasionally helpful for speaking the language of the XGBoost model. And picking only people who are decent at math (and coding) helps ensure the smart factor. How much of that will really change with AI? I've also seen Business stakeholders try to use the chatbot to bypass the Data Scientist. Typically it's not long before there is a design decision or an interesting result the Business stakeholders don't understand. That's why I think there will be demand for Data Scientists. Not exactly evaluation and monitoring. And definitely not gatekeeping building of LLM solutions. Often the opposite, called in to explain and debug the Business stakeholders' slop.
One thing data scientists brought to the table was statistical rigor in the models, but that seems to have left the building at this point with LLM-based solutions.
I agree with you take the there isn’t a lot of specialist work for data scientists to do with using off-the-shelf LLMs that can’t be done by an engineer. As an AI-aware software engineer myself… this stuff wasn’t that hard to pick up. Even a lot of the work on the Evals side (creating an LLM judge etc.) isn’t that hard and doesn’t require serious ML or stats.
But aren’t there still plenty of opportunities for building ML models beyond LLMs, albeit a bit less sexy now? It’s not like you can run a business process like (say) AirBnB’s search rankings or Uber’s driver marching algorithms on an LLM; you need to build a custom model for that. Or am I missing something here? Or is that point that those opportunities are still there, but the pond has shrunk because so much new work is now LLM-related? I buy that.