Watching the UK try to adopt ML is like watching a toddler try to drive a Ferrari. The BoE prides itself on being "up" with the latest talking points amongst t

Watching the UK try to adopt ML is like watching a toddler try to drive a Ferrari. The BoE prides itself on being "up" with the latest talking points amongst the chattering classes. But take a look at how the BoE is actually run and you will get an idea why British society struggles with change. Incompetence and knowledge of irrelevant information is pride of place in British society. Example: Carney has been the most accident prone BoE governor since...the last one, who was trying to raise rates in 2008...the Chief Economist was head of Financial Stability in 2006...yes, seriously (incidentally, he recovered his reputation by being able to hit headlines by talking about new trendy topics like ML). Where ML has been implemented in the UK it is often by managers who have almost no competence in any real-world skills. They have heard about ML, think it is magic, and want to look like they know what they are doing. This has resulted in very bad outcomes (a recent story - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/15/councils-using-algorithms-make-welfare-decisions-benefits https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/15/councils-usi...). I don't think this effect is at all well understood (economists, for example, tend to assume that the person in charge actually knows what they are doing...despite all the research suggesting the contrary in the UK). Insurance has done well because there is a good level of statistical knowledge amongst managers. But I suspect the UK will continue to lag the world (as it does in almost everything else) as the hype disappears, and the typical British suspicion of new technology and change returns.