You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well written SQL scripts

Re:You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well ... by gnicholas on Monday April 23, 2018 @12:47AM (#16900593)

It's true, we could use AI or ML to do stuff not related to the core product. But these investors thought that we should be using ML in the coloring algorithm itself. Even if this made sense to do (that is, if it improved reading ability for people compared with our current product), it would be much harder to explain.

Right now, it's easy to say it's a color gradient that wraps from one line to the next, guiding your eyes. I don't know how I insert "machine learning" into that sentence somewhere and not sound like I'm trying to trend-surf.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You probably don't need AI/ML. You can make do with well ... by vidarh on Monday April 23, 2018 @07:11AM (#16902291)

If you can apply any kind of approach that automatically feeds measurements of user success back in to an algorithm to automatically adjust e.g. the colors used for the gradient based on measuring what works best, you can justify saying you're using machine learning.

I think people are too often too quick to assume that machine learning necessarily implies deep learning and neural networks, when often it can reasonably be reduced to simple statistical approaches.

[ Parent | on HN ]