> I am always annoyed at claims in supervised learning that a machine predictor is better than humans. Humans obviously are the ones that scored the dataset to

> I am always annoyed at claims in supervised learning that a machine predictor is better than humans. Humans obviously are the ones that scored the dataset to begin with For some problems, sure. For prediction tasks on the other hand, you have an actual ground truth that can be compared to human a priori prediction. Neural net NLP results are rarely about actual intelligence or clever use of latent variables that it figured out, and more "pattern matching" that explains why its errors are so different from human errors. It doesn't actually understand the problem, it's finding tricks to solve the questions that happen to be regularities in the dataset that us humans can't really see.