4 ms·

From your original comment: > Ah yes, "groundbreaking collaboration between humans and computers", which in this case actually means "pay a human below minimum

From your original comment: > Ah yes, "groundbreaking collaboration between humans and computers", which in this case actually means "pay a human below minimum wage to type numbers on a keyboard". I agree that this is marketing speech (which is a reality of any business selling a product), but you implied that their operation is human-powered with only the illusion of machine interaction, which you go onto confirm: > Gotta love corporate marketing speak. The only thing that would make this even more ridiculous is if Captricity claimed they were using the mystical "machine learning" too. Hmm, let's check their website. If you had bothered to read the site you linked (or if you knew what OCR stands for), you'd understand that there is machine learning at play here, and not just for chunking up the documents. You made empty speculations about a company's technology for the sole purpose of denigrating them. You might think this is splitting hairs, but these sardonic swipes lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. It's OK to speculate about the technology in play, but not when you're insinuating that it's essentially fraudulent with absolutely zero evidence.

txcwpalpha 8y ago
>If you had bothered to read the site you linked (or if you knew what OCR stands for), you'd understand that there is machine learning at play here, and not just for chunking up the documents. You made empty speculations about a company's technology for the sole purpose of denigrating them. Yea, and again, none of that is relevant here. I didn't make any judgements about their actual process (other than the fact that it did, objectively, fail). My focus is on the marketing speak, and despite what you may think, "machine learning" is as useless and as meaningless of a word as "cloud" is. >but you implied that their operation is human-powered with only the illusion of machine interaction, which you go onto confirm: I didn't imply any such thing, but that's a nice straw man you're building over there. You know, these arguments like yours are the type of thing that really lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. Wait a minute... >You might think this is splitting hairs, but these sardonic swipes lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. It's OK to speculate about the technology in play, but not when you're insinuating that it's essentially fraudulent with absolutely zero evidence. Ohhh okay, so when I make a comment about the technology, it's "lowering the bar of intellectual discourse", but when you speculate about the technology, it's okay? Nice hypocrisy, bud. Talk about lowering the bar of intellectual discourse.
- cloakandswagger 8y ago
  I'm going to discontinue this as you are getting upset and increasingly personal, I'd ask that you try to be more thoughtful with your comments in the future.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    Lol. You accuse me of "lowering the bar of intellectual discourse", and when when I do the same to you, it's "increasingly personal"? More hypocrisy. That's two instances of hypocrisy in as many comments. Perhaps you should be a bit more thoughtful and try to avoid such mistakes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

txcwpalpha 8y ago

>If you had bothered to read the site you linked (or if you knew what OCR stands for), you'd understand that there is machine learning at play here, and not just for chunking up the documents. You made empty speculations about a company's technology for the sole purpose of denigrating them. Yea, and again, none of that is relevant here. I didn't make any judgements about their actual process (other than the fact that it did, objectively, fail). My focus is on the marketing speak, and despite what you may think, "machine learning" is as useless and as meaningless of a word as "cloud" is. >but you implied that their operation is human-powered with only the illusion of machine interaction, which you go onto confirm: I didn't imply any such thing, but that's a nice straw man you're building over there. You know, these arguments like yours are the type of thing that really lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. Wait a minute... >You might think this is splitting hairs, but these sardonic swipes lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. It's OK to speculate about the technology in play, but not when you're insinuating that it's essentially fraudulent with absolutely zero evidence. Ohhh okay, so when I make a comment about the technology, it's "lowering the bar of intellectual discourse", but when you speculate about the technology, it's okay? Nice hypocrisy, bud. Talk about lowering the bar of intellectual discourse.

cloakandswagger 8y ago
I'm going to discontinue this as you are getting upset and increasingly personal, I'd ask that you try to be more thoughtful with your comments in the future.
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  Lol. You accuse me of "lowering the bar of intellectual discourse", and when when I do the same to you, it's "increasingly personal"? More hypocrisy. That's two instances of hypocrisy in as many comments. Perhaps you should be a bit more thoughtful and try to avoid such mistakes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]