CRISP-DM(CRoss-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining) has its origins in the second half of the nineties and is thus about two decades old. According to many surveys and user polls it is still the de facto standard for developing data mining and knowledge discovery projects. However, undoubtedly the field has moved on considerably in twenty years, with data science now the leading term being favoured over data mining. In this paper we investigate whether, and in what contexts, CRISP-DM is still fit for purpose for data science projects. We argue that if the project is goal-directed and process-driven the process model view still largely holds. On the other hand, when data science projects become more exploratory the paths that the project can take become more varied, and a more flexible model is called for. We suggest what the outlines of such a trajectory-based model might look like and how it can be used to categorise data science projects (goal-directed, exploratory or data management). We examine seven real-life exemplars where exploratory activities play an important role and compare them against 51 use cases extracted from the NIST Big Data Public Working Group. We anticipate this categorisation can help project planning in terms of time and cost characteristics.

The prevailing methods to make large language models more powerful and amenable have been based on continuous scaling up (that is, increasing their size, data volume and computational resources¹) and bespoke shaping up (including post-filtering^2,3, fine tuning or use of human feedback^4,5). However, larger and more instructable large language models may have become less reliable. By studying the relationship between difficulty concordance, task avoidance and prompting stability of several language model families, here we show that easy instances for human participants are also easy for the models, but scaled-up, shaped-up models do not secure areas of low difficulty in which either the model does not err or human supervision can spot the errors. We also find that early models often avoid user questions but scaled-up, shaped-up models tend to give an apparently sensible yet wrong answer much more often, including errors on difficult questions that human supervisors frequently overlook. Moreover, we observe that stability to different natural phrasings of the same question is improved by scaling-up and shaping-up interventions, but pockets of variability persist across difficulty levels. These findings highlight the need for a fundamental shift in the design and development of general-purpose artificial intelligence, particularly in high-stakes areas for which a predictable distribution of errors is paramount.