Re:Why do traders in investment banks feel their jobs are im...
by yjftsjthsd-h on Monday January 02, 2017 @07:42AM
(#13300834)
Given results from ex. neural networks, ML "rules" appear to be granular and flexible enough that I'm not sure they usefully count as being rules anymore.
Re:Why do traders in investment banks feel their jobs are im...
by pyrale on Monday January 02, 2017 @08:11AM
(#13300950)
There are rules in that you're able to create an exhaustive labeled training dataset. The rules may not be generic, but they exist through a specification by example.
Beating a human when there is no discoverability to the problem, and when building an exhaustive dataset is a problem in itself is not on the horizon yet.
Re:Why do traders in investment banks feel their jobs are im...
by webmaven on Monday January 02, 2017 @09:45AM
(#13301355)
> Automatic image and video captioning is in a very sorry state. Machines can't do it.
You may have missed various dramatic improvements over the past year:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&q=%22image+ca...
Re:Why do traders in investment banks feel their jobs are im...
by dilemma on Monday January 02, 2017 @10:05AM
(#13301478)
Definitely haven't. Where is captioning applied with human like accuracy?
Re:Why do traders in investment banks feel their jobs are im...
by webmaven on Monday January 02, 2017 @10:19AM
(#13301567)
Hmm. I suggest that recent SOTA results contradict your contention that the field is in "a very sorry state" and you up the standard to "human like accuracy". Feels like the goalposts are being moved.
Anyway, this paper demonstrates some impressive results:
Machine learning is rule based. The difference is just that it creates many more rules for more and more granular cases. But it will never be intelligent, it will always be a dumb digital bureaucrat.