> Computers excel at: remembering stuff forever and speed. > So any kind of improvement that a neural net or any other solution would bring to the table over a

> Computers excel at: remembering stuff forever and speed. > So any kind of improvement that a neural net or any other solution would bring to the table over a human would likely fall in either one of those categories, either the computer is faster at solving the problem, or its ability to remember and apply a vast amount of data to the problem will give it a (slight) edge over what a human could do, or maybe it will be just enough to reach parity. > It will not tell you what is and what is not significant in the input, though, with enough samples you with your slower but much superior intellect might be able to draw new and far-reaching conclusions once you are exposed to the data in sufficient quantity yourself that a pattern suggests itself. I think that its too early to say how AI will be deployed in practice -- whether it will augment or replace human roles. The ambition is certainly to produce enough "intelligence" to supersede a large fraction of human decision making. As we seek to make computers more powerful, robust, and versatile ("AI"), it seems like we are pushed towards more organic computational structures. If the trend continues, it would imply that the closer we get to AI, the less their strengths and weaknesses would resemble computers of yesteryear. The interesting possibility is that one might be able to have an interpolation between the strengths of humans and computers.