The rise of 'pseudo-AI': how tech firms quietly use humans to do bots' work

Post by srtjstjsj » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 8:02 AM UTC

pm24601 wrote: post #127

shawn wrote: post #53

See also: the front page of HN. You didn’t think that was an algorithm choosing which stories you see, did you? :) It works well. And considering how much effect HN has on our daily lives, it’s neat that the algorithm reduces to “this human has good taste.” I see no reason why HN won’t be around for decades. And that’s exciting. It’s the only newspaper that feels like a community. This used to feel strange — if you t…

Youtube's algorithm is designed to give the viewer stuff similar to what they have already seen. Be it Goto Conference videos, Nazi rants, or wacky people doing fingernail designs. Youtube's AI is not designed take chances and offer up something 'surprising'. 'Surprising' might be offensive not enlightening.

Post by PeterisP » Mon, Jul 09, 2018, 1:36 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #30

bencollier49 wrote: post #19

Great to see the Guardian referencing back to Spinvox here, whose speech-to-text service turned out to be largely run be sweatshop workers in the Phillipines; and a warning from history: This shtick works as long as you can transition to AI. If not, then the service will become increasingly flaky until the business collapses.

> a warning from history: This shtick works as long as you can transition to AI. If not, then the service will become increasingly flaky until the business collapses. The business model "use low-paid labor to service wealthy clients" seems a little more inherently stable than that. In most cases, nobody expects a collapse. Why in speech-to-text?

Post by ybrah » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 8:51 PM UTC

jexah wrote: post #98

bencollier49 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mean "greater than or equal to", which doesn't make it correct, but at least makes sense of their point.

Even then, "greater than or equal to" is >= not => I guess they're meant to be some kind of arrow?