Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 228 posts

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#141

Post by kristopolous »

jsjohnst wrote: post #119
ape4 wrote: post #22

You just bought a washing machine... could I interest you in a washing machine?

While this annoys the hell out of me too, there is a semi-logical explanation that makes sense in many cases: The ad targeting knows you looked at washing machines, but doesn’t know you purchased.

Which is an extremely trivial check to add - if you got assigned that ticket, you'd probably point it at like 2 or so hours.

However, they've been like this for over a decade so it's likely there intentionally. here's one way that could be possible:

There could be some popular third party service that's integrated on many e-commerce sites that sells this information and doesn't actually give a damn if you bought the refrigerator or not. They're selling you, not the refrigerator.

That's the problem with data brokers, it's mostly low quality data.

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#142

Post by vasco »

malkia wrote: post #130
Melatonic wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think most people are arguing that machines will replace everyone anytime soon - it is that they will replace a huge portion of people. If one person can do the job of 10,000 by being the tweaker / approver of an advanced AI that is still 9,999 jobs eliminated. That might be hyperbole (you still probably will need people to support that system)

I agree, but it's true that some jobs should not simply exists. To this day, if I go to our airport in Sofia (Bulgaria), and my baggage is over the limit of 20 or was it 25kg I have to go to another place, pay for it and come back (why? bureaucracy - not only I have to do it, but I'm slowing anyone waiting for me to this - it's like 25-50 meters one place to the other) Unlike Frakfurt, Munich or Heathrow airport wher…

Meanwhile if you fatten up by 20kgs you fly for the same price. Just eat your clothes!

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#143

Post by IncRnd »

ML may not be good at predicting consumers' choices, but multiple regression is. Multiple regression has been used for a long time for this.

The side benefit is that it is mathematically repeatable while also being tweakable with variable inclusion or exclusion.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22multiple+regression%...

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#145

Post by kumarvvr »

cj wrote: post #3

While not exactly aligned to the research, I've been surprised how poor Nest Thermostat's learning feature is. The main selling point for Nest is having a "learning thermostat". Perhaps my schedule is just not predictable enough, but the auto-generated temperature schedules it generates after its "learning" period is not even close to what I would manually set up on a normal thermostat. Maybe I'm just an "edge case"…

Haha. For current state of AI and ML, 95% of the target users would be categorized as "long tail"

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#146

Post by ryangittins »

cj wrote: post #3

While not exactly aligned to the research, I've been surprised how poor Nest Thermostat's learning feature is. The main selling point for Nest is having a "learning thermostat". Perhaps my schedule is just not predictable enough, but the auto-generated temperature schedules it generates after its "learning" period is not even close to what I would manually set up on a normal thermostat. Maybe I'm just an "edge case"…

This has been my experience as well. I was very excited to turn on the learning mode when I got it, only to turn it off a few weeks later in favor of scheduling. I've tried turning it on a couple times since then, and I always revert to a simple, manually-programmed schedule.

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#147

Post by malkia »

vasco wrote: post #142
malkia wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but it's true that some jobs should not simply exists. To this day, if I go to our airport in Sofia (Bulgaria), and my baggage is over the limit of 20 or was it 25kg I have to go to another place, pay for it and come back (why? bureaucracy - not only I have to do it, but I'm slowing anyone waiting for me to this - it's like 25-50 meters one place to the other) Unlike Frakfurt, Munich or Heathrow airport wher…

Meanwhile if you fatten up by 20kgs you fly for the same price. Just eat your clothes!

looooooooooooooooooool (talking as someone who really needs to shed off 20+kgs)

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#148

Post by jsjohnst »

kristopolous wrote: post #141
jsjohnst wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this annoys the hell out of me too, there is a semi-logical explanation that makes sense in many cases: The ad targeting knows you looked at washing machines, but doesn’t know you purchased.

Which is an extremely trivial check to add - if you got assigned that ticket, you'd probably point it at like 2 or so hours. However, they've been like this for over a decade so it's likely there intentionally. here's one way that could be possible: There could be some popular third party service that's integrated on many e-commerce sites that sells this information and doesn't actually give a damn if you bought the…

> Which is an extremely trivial check to add - if you got assigned that ticket, you'd probably point it at like 2 or so hours.

Yep, totally a 2hr task for an engineer who works on homedepot.com to “check” that you bought a fridge from lowes.com after you first price shopped the other site. Also a two hour task for a Google engineer to know you bought one in person at Best Buy after researching online first.

Yes, there are basic cases (buying from same merchant as who’s suggesting) that should be handled, but let’s not foolishly pretend that’s the average case, let alone majority / all.

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#149

Post by numpad0 »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #46
tomcam wrote: post #29

I can personally vouch that Amazon, Twitter, and YouTube all do horrible horrible jobs predicting my taste. And they have got worse over the years, not better

The one thing I've been consistently impressed with is TikTok. If I compare recommendations on YouTube to what I get on my TikTok FYP, it's like comparing a 5-year-old to a college graduate on a math test. Literally to the point where YouTube never pulls me down into the rabbit hole anymore, I watch one video because it was linked from somewhere else, then I bounce.

TikTok FYP didn’t seem to work all that well for me, FWIW…

Re: ML is not that good at predicting consumers' choices

#150

Post by maxbond »

saurik wrote: post #134
ape4 wrote: post #22

You just bought a washing machine... could I interest you in a washing machine?

College Humor--may it rest in peace :( :( :(--did a great bit about this a few years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKdKcGJ4tM It is absolutely ridiculous how useless targeted ads actually are... and seeing a real person try to sell you this stuff really underscores the insanity.

College Humor is alive and well! At least if you enjoy Dungeons and Dragons and silly game shows.
Post reply on HN