> But the stunner for me was the assertion that the value of the semiconductor was "cheaper arithmetic."
In what way would you disagree with this?
For purposes of enterprise resource allocation (the article's domain), it seems an accurate simplification.
Re:The economics of artificial intelligence
by tehsauce on Saturday May 05, 2018 @05:34PM
(#17003965)
Maybe mentions of all the crucial peripherals would have been relevant. The enormous storage capacity, the networks, high resolution displays and sophisticated interfaces.
The original quote was about semiconductors. Not computing systems. From which the author was drawing a thread to the profound impact a decrease in cost (or increase in throughput) of an input can have on the economy.
Taking an abstraction out of context and then griping about minutiae with "Well actually..." quips is intellectually dishonest.
If it's an inaccurate simplification, that's fair, but I thought it was valid for the domain the author was addressing.
Re:The economics of artificial intelligence
by humhumhum on Sunday May 06, 2018 @06:33AM
(#17005942)
> Management consulting nonsense.
Yeah, but nonetheless it will be shared on all public and corporate networks and influence business culture and decisions...
What world would we live in if nobody would have ever termed these technologies "artificial intelligence" but just stuck to "statistics" or maybe something equally boring as "advanced statistics" ...
Here's the author's pitch: The value of AI is in "cheaper prediction." So economic value capture occurs by looking for prediction problems in your business and unleashing AI on those. The author further prescribes that one may have to "recast" certain problems (e.g., self-driving cars) as prediction problems to make it all work.
But the stunner for me was the assertion that the value of the semiconductor was "cheaper arithmetic."
I find these over-generalizations neither accurate nor helpful.