5 ms·
If we could, we would have. But we haven't, so we can't.
by overcode 7y ago
If we could, we would have. But we haven't, so we can't.
- jaabe 7y agoIt has to have a usage though. We ran a long proof of concept on voice recognition as in voice-to-text, for office workers and had good results once the software learned to recognise correctly. I think the best cases were 20-30% increased productivity for a single worker, but it was ultimately useless because we use open offices, so the project got scrapped.
- krageon 7y agoWithout context, this statement means nothing new should ever be done. It's a terrible axiom. Even within the context of this question, if we used this reasoning for the next 500 years we would surely never solve it.
- overcode 7y agoOh sure, but that's why you have the context. My point is that the time gap between a tool like this becoming technically possible and someone executing it successfully will be incredibly small. So the chances of the current moment in time being in that gap is tiny.
- hereiskkb 7y agoThis is some oversimplified bullshit.
- ratsimihah 7y agoLike e = mc^2?