Not sure if people remember but Stanford in collaboration with Sebastian Thrun offered one of the first online educational course in Machine Learning. This piqued my interest in ML and I enrolled & completed the course from one of the most rural parts of India (I had to create an extension antenna for my 3g phone to get better reception).
Udacity was born due to the popularity of this course.
Can't thank Sebastian and Stanford enough for this free course.
That's a [edit:perfectly fine] example to choose for a Stanford MOOC, since Coursera was started based on the success of Andrew Ng's machine learning course.
edit: People below (and above) are more knowledgeable than I am.
Did that course actually. Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig were the instructors. Still have the certificate from the course(back then they used to provide signed certificates from the instructors for free).
Why not take the Georgia Tech online MSCS instead? Only $7k, you get a Master's degree instead of a 'Certificate', and you have the option of covering a lot of the same material.
Yep.
And Sebastian Thrun's course (the Stanford professor, google VP, Udacity founder and google driverless car initiator) is part of that program. You can take AI for robotics for credit there :)
Are ML/AI certificate holders competing for the same jobs as ML/AI PhD graduates? I have a list of follow up questions to this but it seems like there's a lot of hype for ML/AI/DeepLearning but no definitive way to track this new job market. These online programs, although more accessible, are doing the same thing as their physical campus counter part and not being transparent about what to expect after finishing their programs.
Admittedly it's been a few years since I considered getting into this field but the last time I checked there weren't that many positions available and most of them required graduate degrees from good schools. Seems that even companies with a significant ML emphasis employ a lot fewer ML specialists than nuts & bolts coders.
The certificate holders may be competing for the same jobs, though I really doubt they'd get one over PhD candidates unless there was something they had done substantially at least as interesting as an ML/AI PhD holder, or I guess if the company absolutely can't find anyone with higher qualifications.
And I think what I perceive as your doubts as to landing a job with one of these are probably founded. This is a way for the university to make a bunch of cash. As long as that happens, whether students get a related job or not is not important to the university except to help with marketing to prospects.
What will the AI expert job market be like in two years? Expectations seem to be running high, people see promising trends, but no one can see the future. At least, not yet, I think. Maybe there's a new paper.
$20K for a few online courses? Genesereth teaching logic and automated reasoning? (I took a class from him once. Exam question: "Does a rock have intentions?")
This costs about $15k - $19k. With all the great lecture and homework content out on the Internet about AI, ML, deep learning, vision and natural language, I wonder if one can put together a more comprehensive and customized version of this that one can learn for free.
The toughest curriculum in any AI related MOOC I've seen so far. Just CS228 - Probabilistic Graphical Models is enough to bleed someone's brain. Wish Daphne Koller still taught that course.
Oh well, as someone who is currently enrolled into Udacity's Self-driving car and AI nanodegrees, watching ongoing MIT's self-driving course, considering taking GATech's online M.S. degree for ML, I should probably start planning budget for this Stanford offering...
Awesome! I'm also currently taking Udacity's self-driving car nanodegree, but I think I only intend on doing the first of three semesters because I want to concentrate on the fundamentals, and not necessarily self-driving cars. Do you recommend enrolling or checking out the AI nanodegree? Have you looked at the ML one?
20k or 10k per required course (there's electives but let's assume the bare minimum) seems steep for an online certificate which seems fairly worthless from a signaling POV.
I'm not sure their brand name justifies that price (not sure about the content). The competition is probably the AI nanodegree from Udacity which costs 800$/term with the chance to earn some of that back. If the employer I want the certificate for knows what online certificates are, chances are they are familiar with Udacity (possibly more so than with Stanford in that market).
If one's goal is to work at OpenAI, FAIR, or DeepMind, which would be a better use of time — obtaining this certificate or getting quality papers into NIPS / ICML?
Wow tough call. The certificate would represent a baseline of understanding which can be then further trained, a good publication history in NIPS/ICML Etc. would represent a solid contribution to the field. I would not be surprised if those were, to a first approximation, equivalent.
Stanford is just trying to cash in on people by having their cake and eating it too.
They want to charge 20k, but not let anyone have a chance of further advancing to complete a real degree, no matter how excellent their performance in this program.
The reason they do this is solely to protect their brand and exclusivity. They already offer online degrees but the acceptance rate is just as limited as the on campus program.
Yes the learning is important, but so is the credential and a certificate doesn't even come close to a degree in the job market.
Stanford should pick one:
1) Charge Stanford prices, scale up online, and let any student who can do the work pay tuition and earn a degree.
2) Charge lower prices for certificates and continue to artificially ration real degrees.
I did this program. I can say it was literally a waste of money. I planned on joining a member company (so I could complete the degree remotely) at some point but meh none were interesting enough to join. You can get all the value in this program for free by reading a couple textbooks.
"a certificate doesn't even come close to a degree in the job market"
So? Do they say that it does? I'm already a software engineer and can tell you that having an AI certificate from an accredited University is a great stepping stone to transitioning into this line of work even if it does not make me an expert.
For me it's valuable the way they've constructed it. I like the idea that I can take some night classes in addition to my full time job, and just focus on one specific area.
Okay, graduate degrees fulfill that purpose too, but with life events now and over the horizon, I just don't have the bandwidth to commit to getting my Masters or a Ph.D. right now.
I think "Artificial Intelligence a Modern Approach" is still the best foundation book. However it certainly is not focused on deep learning. There's chapters on pretty much everything (one on reinforcement learning) but it is build around the idea of intelligent agents first and foremost. Best written CS book I own.
Hard to say without having taken these classes. GT isn't Stanford but a top 10 MSCS that offers an ML specialization for ~$8k-$10k.
Whether that provides more value or employment opportunity I cannot say, but it is encouraging to see more to universities offering an alternative to traditional degree programs.
I think there's a path for non-MS, non-PhD backgrounds, but probably not now. Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. So until they learn practical application I think supply will outnumber demand and most of the jobs will go to PhD AI/statistics backgrounds.
Disclaimer: I do not hold any kind of real degree (just an Associates from a defunct tech school - worth little to nothing now) - so take the following for what it is...
Based on my experience, which I won't re-iterate here - the various MOOCs I've taken (and currently the Udacity Nanodegree) would not be anywhere close to a masters in the subject (unless I am severely overestimating a masters - but I don't think so).
TBH - they would probably equate closer to an Associates, at best.
This offering from Stanford? Not sure - but I still don't think it would be the equivalent. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I think if your goal is a deep level of knowledge and understanding of the subject, then a quality masters program for CompSci or similar would be the better path.
> Software engineers interested in acquiring a solid foundation in artificial intelligence.
Does a "solid foundation in AI" actually exist?
I'm asking because it seems that nobody really knows why many algorithms actually work, or even how they should be adjusted to cover new applications. To me it sounds more like "educated guessing".
If you are talking about ML then: Bayesian stuff, Variational and MCMC, Graphical models, Deep Learning, Linear Algebra, Probability theory, Statistics, Multivariate Calculus, Optimizations - as a baseline. I think the "average" person on HN would not be interested in ML if they had to learn it rigorously. It's much easier to blackbox the entire thing and label yourself as a "ML Engineer" then learn the fundamentals listed above. Having a Stats/Applied Math background would be very helpful.
My advice, start with the free stuff. If you complete it then consider a paid thing. The completion rates of online courses is super low. I take this to mean people don't really want to do it.
Columbia University has an Artificial Intelligence MicroMasters on EdX, first cohort started this month. It's free, or 1200$ if you want Columbia course credit.
The courses are identical to the courses one would take if they were getting their Master's at Stanford - the only difference is that only four classes are required, while a Master's requires about 15.
I'm enrolled in Stanford's CS Master's program right now through the Honors Cooperative Program (which lets you get a Master's online while working in industry), and I'm currently planning on doing a dual specialization in Systems and AI. For the AI specialization I've already taken CS 221 and 229, and I'll have to take three more AI classes drawn from a list pretty similar to the Elective Courses list in the OP.
ganeshkrishnan|9 years ago
Udacity was born due to the popularity of this course.
Can't thank Sebastian and Stanford enough for this free course.
dswalter|9 years ago
edit: People below (and above) are more knowledgeable than I am.
nafizh|9 years ago
jtagen|9 years ago
xyzzy123|9 years ago
The question is only whether the HR person's neural network triggers more strongly on "master's degree" or "stanford".
None of this has anything to do with what you learned or know. Like most tertiary education.
eranation|9 years ago
sharps_xp|9 years ago
ganeshkrishnan|9 years ago
So for jobs, ML/AI is pretty much an even field unless there are niche research jobs which only requires Phd gradudates
cageface|9 years ago
jupiter90000|9 years ago
And I think what I perceive as your doubts as to landing a job with one of these are probably founded. This is a way for the university to make a bunch of cash. As long as that happens, whether students get a related job or not is not important to the university except to help with marketing to prospects.
zardo|9 years ago
Animats|9 years ago
m-photonic|9 years ago
theCricketer|9 years ago
jbarciauskas|9 years ago
https://www.edx.org/micromasters/columbiax-artificial-intell...
(EdX employee)
deepGem|9 years ago
XenophileJKO|9 years ago
XenophileJKO|9 years ago
[deleted]
bitL|9 years ago
ConAntonakos|9 years ago
benliong78|9 years ago
By MIT self driving course are you referring to http://selfdrivingcars.mit.edu/ ?
kriro|9 years ago
I'm not sure their brand name justifies that price (not sure about the content). The competition is probably the AI nanodegree from Udacity which costs 800$/term with the chance to earn some of that back. If the employer I want the certificate for knows what online certificates are, chances are they are familiar with Udacity (possibly more so than with Stanford in that market).
Xcelerate|9 years ago
Kephael|9 years ago
ChuckMcM|9 years ago
WhitneyLand|9 years ago
They want to charge 20k, but not let anyone have a chance of further advancing to complete a real degree, no matter how excellent their performance in this program.
The reason they do this is solely to protect their brand and exclusivity. They already offer online degrees but the acceptance rate is just as limited as the on campus program.
Yes the learning is important, but so is the credential and a certificate doesn't even come close to a degree in the job market.
Stanford should pick one:
1) Charge Stanford prices, scale up online, and let any student who can do the work pay tuition and earn a degree.
2) Charge lower prices for certificates and continue to artificially ration real degrees.
enknamel|9 years ago
adamkochanowicz|9 years ago
So? Do they say that it does? I'm already a software engineer and can tell you that having an AI certificate from an accredited University is a great stepping stone to transitioning into this line of work even if it does not make me an expert.
adamkochanowicz|9 years ago
Okay, graduate degrees fulfill that purpose too, but with life events now and over the horizon, I just don't have the bandwidth to commit to getting my Masters or a Ph.D. right now.
I really have no problem with this.
amatsukawa|9 years ago
That indeed does not exist, but if you do well on these, you are probably pretty eligible for their part-time MS program.
unknown|9 years ago
[deleted]
sp332|9 years ago
betadreamer|9 years ago
kriro|9 years ago
b1gtuna|9 years ago
nkozyra|9 years ago
Whether that provides more value or employment opportunity I cannot say, but it is encouraging to see more to universities offering an alternative to traditional degree programs.
I think there's a path for non-MS, non-PhD backgrounds, but probably not now. Outside of the big companies, ML/AI is often a solution without a problem. So until they learn practical application I think supply will outnumber demand and most of the jobs will go to PhD AI/statistics backgrounds.
cr0sh|9 years ago
Based on my experience, which I won't re-iterate here - the various MOOCs I've taken (and currently the Udacity Nanodegree) would not be anywhere close to a masters in the subject (unless I am severely overestimating a masters - but I don't think so).
TBH - they would probably equate closer to an Associates, at best.
This offering from Stanford? Not sure - but I still don't think it would be the equivalent. I'm not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile, but I think if your goal is a deep level of knowledge and understanding of the subject, then a quality masters program for CompSci or similar would be the better path.
snowcrshd|9 years ago
I have interest in AI, but I'm not sure how companies would see this online degree (even through it is from Stanford).
amelius|9 years ago
Does a "solid foundation in AI" actually exist?
I'm asking because it seems that nobody really knows why many algorithms actually work, or even how they should be adjusted to cover new applications. To me it sounds more like "educated guessing".
grayshirts|9 years ago
oculusthrift|9 years ago
ClearAsMud|9 years ago
maerF0x0|9 years ago
dnkrtz|9 years ago
JoeDaDude|9 years ago
https://www.udacity.com/course/artificial-intelligence-nanod...
zxcvvcxz|9 years ago
Also - is this closer to a Master's level program or part of an undergraduate curriculum?
torinmr|9 years ago
I'm enrolled in Stanford's CS Master's program right now through the Honors Cooperative Program (which lets you get a Master's online while working in industry), and I'm currently planning on doing a dual specialization in Systems and AI. For the AI specialization I've already taken CS 221 and 229, and I'll have to take three more AI classes drawn from a list pretty similar to the Elective Courses list in the OP.
nkozyra|9 years ago
If nothing else it's markedly worse because it's 1/3 the classes :). Beyond that I'd expect rigor ... it's Stanford after all.
bitL|9 years ago