Data science
fromMedium
2 days agoIs the Data Scientist Role Dead? No, it's Transforming
The data scientist role is evolving, not disappearing, as organizations demand broader skills and system-oriented thinking.
When discussing their results, they tell us that Facebook's reporting or Google Analytics show the ad campaigns as barely breaking even. Yet they keep investing in this channel. They reason that Facebook can only see a fraction of the sales, so if Facebook is reporting a 1x return on ad spend (ROAS) then it's probably at least 2x in reality.
What happens under the hood? How is the search engine able to take that simple query, look for images in the billions, trillions of images that are available online? How is it able to find this one or similar photos from all that? Usually, there is an embedding model that is doing this work behind the hood.
Since AlexNet5, deep learning has replaced heuristic hand-crafted features by unifying feature learning with deep neural networks. Later, Transformers6 and GPT-3 (ref. 1) further advanced sequence learning at scale, unifying structured tasks such as natural language processing. However, multimodal learning, spanning modalities such as images, video and text, has remained fragmented, relying on separate diffusion-based generation or compositional vision-language pipelines with many hand-crafted designs.
The title "data scientist" is quietly disappearing from job postings, internal org charts, and LinkedIn headlines. In its place, roles like "AI engineer," "applied AI engineer," and "machine learning engineer" are becoming the norm. This Data Scientist vs AI Engineer shift raises an important question for practitioners and leaders alike: what actually changes when a data scientist becomes an AI engineer, and what stays the same? More importantly, what skills matter if you want to make this transition intentionally rather than by accident?