So that’s not inherently true. AI (at least in this sense of it actually being Machine Learning) does not learn on the fly. It learns off base data and applies those findings until it’s retrained again.
You’re correct and that’s way more efficient than teaching dozens of people what do ban. People make mistakes, Tech doesn’t (as long as it’s coded correctly)
I reject that pretty majorly. Tech makes mistakes at a much higher rate than humans, even when built correctly. Tech just makes consistent mistakes instead.
Photo AI still have issues determining between dogs and cats. Cancer detection AIs were analyzing x-rays and basing decisions off the doctor who signed them.
The Boeing 737 MAX built a properly working Autopilot system, but didn’t train pilots correctly, causing pilots to expect functionality similar to older versions and causing plane crashes. The software was 100% right, but it made mistakes because the human input was different than expected.
So that’s not inherently true. AI (at least in this sense of it actually being Machine Learning) does not learn on the fly. It learns off base data and applies those findings until it’s retrained again.
You’re correct and that’s way more efficient than teaching dozens of people what do ban. People make mistakes, Tech doesn’t (as long as it’s coded correctly)
I reject that pretty majorly. Tech makes mistakes at a much higher rate than humans, even when built correctly. Tech just makes consistent mistakes instead.
I don’t trust AI moderation of anything.
Do you have an example for a correctly built tech stuff which makes constant mistakes?
Pretty much any AI system.
Photo AI still have issues determining between dogs and cats. Cancer detection AIs were analyzing x-rays and basing decisions off the doctor who signed them.
The Boeing 737 MAX built a properly working Autopilot system, but didn’t train pilots correctly, causing pilots to expect functionality similar to older versions and causing plane crashes. The software was 100% right, but it made mistakes because the human input was different than expected.