4 ms·
"We are now at a point in history when algorithms can learn, like people, about pretty much anything. " seems pretty disingenuously worded. One infers from a q
by mdda 10y ago
"We are now at a point in history when algorithms can learn, like people, about pretty much anything. " seems pretty disingenuously worded.
One infers from a quick read ~"Algorithms are now like people, and can learn about anything." But careful parsing of the commas shows that the sentence is true, but in the precise sense that "People can learn about anything. Now, algorithms can also learn about anything." - and the extent of learning/understanding is not being compared.
Perhaps I'm nit-picking, but this statement appears to have been constructed to support an AI pitch, and is literally true, but no 'actual AI' is involved (and no-one is actually claiming it is... unless you /want to believe/).
- legel 10y agoThe message is genuine and simple: computers can now learn like humans.
- mdda 10y agoIt is a genuine message. It is also simple. But it isn't actually true. Computers are not able to learn like humans : the learning process is entirely different. And what they learn is different - even though it can be visualized in a way that makes it look 'humanlike'. These techniques are impressive, and yhat is demonstrating that they are very capable. It's just that I feel a little sad that the 'AI pitch' is being turned on, when the 'really good tech' is a much more valid way to understand what they're doing.
- legel 10y agoThanks for the 'really good tech' comment, I'll take that on HN any day. I'm sure we could agree on many structural differences in human and machine learning, and in that sense, I'd agree that it makes sense to be clearer about them.