4 ms·

That's an interesting argument and it certainly seems right, but I can't say if that's because there's truth to it or because I am as "algorithm averse" as the

by ghkbrew 10y ago

That's an interesting argument and it certainly seems right, but I can't say if that's because there's truth to it or because I am as "algorithm averse" as the next guy. What's nice is it seems to offer a falsifiable prediction. Namely, that there are "super-experts" out there who consistently beat machine learning algorithms. Even if they aren't numerous enough to bring up the mean. Do the current studies show that?

guimarin 10y ago
To answer your question is complicated because of the existence of Centaurs[1]. I will say that the fact that entities like Renaissance [2] exist is proof that there are still some humans that are better than machine learning algorithms. Now whether Renaissance employs Centaurs is hard to tell. My statement though is that machines reduce the number of experts because they reduce the population looking at a problem and my suspicion is that experts are uniformly distributed. So in a population of 100, there might be 1 expert in a population of 10000, 100 experts and 1 super expert, etc. I chose the financial markets because you could say that it is the perfect competitive space for this kind of evaluation, though I wouldn't be surprised if Centaurs or humans existed in other areas as well which are better than machine learning algorithms. Still the point stands that for people in the 91st to 98th percentile a lot of value will probably be lost when humans start going away from practices in droves. Another acceleration for the 1%. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies
- Symmetry 10y ago
  There was an era when human/computer combinations were better at chess than either alone but that era has passed and nowadays pure computer chess programs do better than human/computer teams. We should probably expect to see the same thing in other fields where as computers get better there's a period where centaurs work best before an era where pure AI dominates.
  - guimarin 10y ago
    Do you have a source/ranking I can take a look at here? Hadn't heard of that and it totally changes the game.(no pun intended)
    - Symmetry 10y ago
      Here's a discussion. The amount humans add does depend on how fast the chess game goes and it's 90 minute games where humans have become superfluous. For 1 day per move games humans can still provide useful input last I heard. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-humans-still-good-for-the-turning-point-in-freestyle-chess-may-be-approaching.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha...

by ghkbrew 10y ago

guimarin 10y ago

To answer your question is complicated because of the existence of Centaurs[1]. I will say that the fact that entities like Renaissance [2] exist is proof that there are still some humans that are better than machine learning algorithms. Now whether Renaissance employs Centaurs is hard to tell. My statement though is that machines reduce the number of experts because they reduce the population looking at a problem and my suspicion is that experts are uniformly distributed. So in a population of 100, there might be 1 expert in a population of 10000, 100 experts and 1 super expert, etc. I chose the financial markets because you could say that it is the perfect competitive space for this kind of evaluation, though I wouldn't be surprised if Centaurs or humans existed in other areas as well which are better than machine learning algorithms. Still the point stands that for people in the 91st to 98th percentile a lot of value will probably be lost when humans start going away from practices in droves. Another acceleration for the 1%. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies

Symmetry 10y ago
There was an era when human/computer combinations were better at chess than either alone but that era has passed and nowadays pure computer chess programs do better than human/computer teams. We should probably expect to see the same thing in other fields where as computers get better there's a period where centaurs work best before an era where pure AI dominates.
- guimarin 10y ago
  Do you have a source/ranking I can take a look at here? Hadn't heard of that and it totally changes the game.(no pun intended)
  - Symmetry 10y ago
    Here's a discussion. The amount humans add does depend on how fast the chess game goes and it's 90 minute games where humans have become superfluous. For 1 day per move games humans can still provide useful input last I heard. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-humans-still-good-for-the-turning-point-in-freestyle-chess-may-be-approaching.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha...