3 ms·
> I also don't see how this could possibly be true. Certainly the sphere of tasks that computers competently handle compared to humans is growing, but it's nowh
by bastawhiz 5y ago
> I also don't see how this could possibly be true. Certainly the sphere of tasks that computers competently handle compared to humans is growing, but it's nowhere near "any job a human can reasonably do".
If we admit it's a job that a computer cannot reasonably do, then why do we have a computer doing it in the first place? We shouldn't accept the status quo with "well it's okay-enough" if it has limitations that are significant (and frequent!) enough to cause a large controversy.
In fact, Twitter's response was _to remove the algorithm from production_. The whole point of this challenge is to find out if there's a way to automate this task well. It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to be good enough that the times where it's wrong are not blatant and reproducible, like when this was initially made apparent:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/21/twitter-apologises-for-racist-image-cropping-algorithm https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/21/twitter-a...
- naasking 5y ago> If we admit it's a job that a computer cannot reasonably do, then why do we have a computer doing it in the first place? That's not what you said. You said if it's a job that can be reasonably done by a human, then a computer should be similarly effective. That's clearly false. > if it has limitations that are significant (and frequent!) enough to cause a large controversy. Controversies are not necessarily a sign that a problem is significant. Consider all the "war on Christmas" nonsense.