5 ms·
True but I am not sure "nanotech" was used by top S&P 500 companies and their engineers on a daily basis.
by account73466 7y ago
True but I am not sure "nanotech" was used by top S&P 500 companies and their engineers on a daily basis.
- scottlocklin 7y agoNewsflash: neither is "AI." Unless you expand the word "nanotech" to include things like toothpaste and paint, or the word "AI" to mean things like logistic regression and random forests.
- MLpractitioner 7y agoAI for standard machine learning is definitely widely used in most industries
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoI'm curious - how do you know it's used for most industries? I'm sure there are lots of industries that use ML, and lots that don't. Is there a report on this somewhere? I just get a lot of worthless hype articles when I google it.
- account73466 7y agoYou see that from papers published at top ML conferences. Top contributors are often from FAANG. Some papers are clearly applications.
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoFAANG isn't "most industries" by any stretch. This ignores healthcare, automotive, pharmaceutical, agricultural, and so many more industries. All you've done is point out that there are a lot of ML papers coming from tech companies. Nobody is disputing that. Why do you assume this generalizes to most industries?
- account73466 7y agoGo to Google Scholar, type your favorite company and "deep learning". If you find no paper from that company, chances are high their stock price is not beating S&P 500 over the last 5 years. Also, top S&P 500 companies by market cap are "AAPL","MSFT","GOOG","AMZN","FB","BABA".
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoThis is a No True Scotsman argument. Who said anything about beating the S&P 500? I said most industries, and every comment you are redefining what that means.
- account73466 7y ago>> Who said anything about beating the S&P 500? I said. >> and every comment you are redefining what that means That is false. You could learn something. Instead, you wasted my time.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago1) I ask why this applies to most industries 2) You point out it applies to FAANG 3) I say FAANG isn't most industries 4) You say most industries must only include those better than the S&P 500 5) I point out a flaw in your reasoning 6) You insist you are right, upset that I tried to ask a question 7) I summarize what happened and exit this thread
- account73466 7y ago"1) I ask why this applies to most industries 2) You point out it applies to FAANG" That is a lie because I said "often" in "You see that from papers published at top ML conferences. Top contributors are often from FAANG. Some papers are clearly applications." without saying that FAANG = most industries. Instead, I said you can see that from these conferences. Thus, you made it up. "4) You say most industries must only include those better than the S&P 500" That is a lie. I didn't say that. I said "If you find no paper from that company, chances are high their stock price is not beating S&P 500 over the last 5 years." I only mentioned a correlation and said nothing about your "most industries". You misinterpret the text. Fortunately, the text is written so it was easy to prove you are liar, boy.
- nostromo 7y agoActually it’s quite analogous. When nanotech became a hot concept, the goal posts were moved so that companies could claim they were nanotech companies even though they were using pretty basic chemistry. No nanobots required. And now we’re seeing a lot of statistics being rebranded as AI because the latter attracts investors and journalists.
- account73466 7y agoAI is the term used by marketing division and clueless public. Researchers don't use that term without a special need. FAANG engineers actually use ML approaches.