Two goals - improving replicability and accountability of Machine Learning research respectively, have accrued much attention from the AI ethics and the Machine Learning community. Despite sharing the measures of improving transparency, the two goals are discussed in different registers - replicability registers with scientific reasoning whereas accountability registers with ethical reasoning. Given the existing challenge of the Responsibility Gap - holding Machine Learning scientists accountable for Machine Learning harms due to them being far from sites of application, this paper posits that reconceptualizing replicability can help bridge the gap. Through a shift from model performance replicability to claim replicability, Machine Learning scientists can be held accountable for producing non-replicable claims that are prone to eliciting harm due to misuse and misinterpretation. In this paper, I make the following contributions. First, I define and distinguish two forms of replicability for ML research that can aid constructive conversations around replicability. Second, I formulate an argument for claim-replicability's advantage over model performance replicability in justifying assigning accountability to Machine Learning scientists for producing non-replicable claims and show how it enacts a sense of responsibility that is actionable. In addition, I characterize the implementation of claim replicability as more of a social project than a technical one by discussing its competing epistemological principles, practical implications on Circulating Reference, Interpretative Labor, and research communication.

One of the most important aspects of data science is building trust. This is especially true when you're working with machine learning and AI technologies, which are new and unfamiliar to many people. When something goes wrong, what do you tell your customer? What do they think will happen next? With explainable AI, you can provide answers that prove your product's legitimacy.

My conviction for a product has never been so high for any ML Ops framework as for Ray. Let's be honest, most "ML Ops" libraries suck, not just suck they will probably slow down your ML scientists and data scientists vs not even using anything. Occasionally (surprisingly quite often now), someone asks me about ray and why I think is going to win. I spent plenty of hours trying to formalize my thoughts and here is a summary of it. In layman's terms, through a set of beautifully designed libraries and easy-to-use decorators (@ray.remote),

The word on the street is if you don't invest in ML as a company or become an ML specialist, the industry will leave you behind. The hype has caught on at all levels, catching everyone from undergrads to VCs. Words like "revolutionary," "innovative," "disruptive," and "lucrative" are frequently used to describe ML. Allow me to share some perspective from my experiences that will hopefully temper this enthusiasm, at least a tiny bit. This essay materialized from having the same conversation several times over with interlocutors who hope ML can unlock a bright future for them. I'm here to convince you that investing in an ML department or ML specialists might not be in your best interest. That is not always true, of course, so read this with a critical eye. The names invoke a sense of extraordinary success, and for a good reason. Yet, these companies dominated their industries before Andrew Ng's launched his first ML lectures on Coursera. The difference between "good enough" and "state-of-the-art" machine learning is significant in academic publications but not in the real world. About once or twice a year, something pops into my newsfeed, informing me that someone improved the top 1 ImageNet accuracy from 86 to 87 or so. Our community enshrines state-of-the-art with almost religious significance, so this score's systematic improvement creates an impression that our field is racing towards unlocking the singularity. No-one outside of academia cares if you can distinguish between a guitar and a ukulele 1% better. Sit back and think for a minute.