4 ms·
If you had accuracy similar to a human, and assuming this is an existing procedure humans do use, then of course it's useful -- you're doing the same task cheap
by setr 6y ago
If you had accuracy similar to a human, and assuming this is an existing procedure humans do use, then of course it's useful -- you're doing the same task cheaper/faster.
Presumably you'd also use the same techniques as used by humans today to narrow down further, like taking into account location, time, etc of match
- mumblemumble 6y ago> you're doing the same task cheaper/faster Move fast and break lives.
- couchand 6y agoDoing the same thing but faster and cheaper doesn't necessarily mean it's better. If there's a high cost to a procedure, then the user would need to show the value of checking a candidate in some other way for it to be worth the effort. Making it easier and faster means you're more likely to check against random innocent individuals.
- randomdude402 6y agoFast, cheap, good. You can only ever choose two.
- TheCoelacanth 6y agoOften, you are lucky to get one.
- rozab 6y agoSeems like the equivalent of p-hacking to me. Sure they could apply complex queries to narrow down the suspects in a fair way, but I don't trust them to do that.