It has to have a usage though. We ran a long proof of concept on voice recognition as in voice-to-text, for office workers and had good results once the software learned to recognise correctly.
I think the best cases were 20-30% increased productivity for a single worker, but it was ultimately useless because we use open offices, so the project got scrapped.
Without context, this statement means nothing new should ever be done. It's a terrible axiom. Even within the context of this question, if we used this reasoning for the next 500 years we would surely never solve it.
Oh sure, but that's why you have the context. My point is that the time gap between a tool like this becoming technically possible and someone executing it successfully will be incredibly small. So the chances of the current moment in time being in that gap is tiny.
A libertarian republican from Kentucky... while your answer might be technically correct, I really don't think that this is the rare gem of a politician that OP is looking for.
I'm actually okay with just knowing who is competent enough to make decisions. I'm super worried (I think correctly that our leadership isn't capable of understanding some of the complex issues that our society is about to face)
I'm not using that as a proxy for ALL decision making. I'm representing that making decisions that concern technology would be better performed by people that understand technology.
Implicitly our political class might not be good with tech because they are not digital natives, from which one could infer that decisions on topics such as artificial intelligence, or biotechnology might be difficult. I was hoping for counter examples.
I understand where you coming from but I don't think that a politician's apparent knowledge about a subject is a good indicator of how good their decisions regarding this subject will be.
Of course it doesn't. My point is that even if you have knowledge about technology/science, that's completely irrelevant when you then go on to support and represent people who actively ignore science/expertise and have no concept of evidence based decision making.
Very often these personal efforts are simply virtue signalling or a way for people to feel better about themselves. Doesn't mean that you should be wasteful with your resources or actively damage your environment but please, don't pretend to be saving the earth by drinking less milk.
Where a difference can be made:
- politics - if you are in politics yourself, or you can lobby and exercise some pressure to dictate policy, that can go a long way
- industry leaders can actually make a difference but don't have the incentives for it
- research and innovation - if you're an engineer this is probably where you can make the biggest difference even if you're unlikely to be one of the few people who have a breakthrough - renewable energy, alternative materials, new ways of food production and so on - you can put in work to improve the technology behind any of these to the point where they make more economic sense
Not sure what data you expect to see. People generally don't publish their discriminatory lending and insurance policies. Or do you think that the statement that it's profitable might be incorrect?
Based on my experience, apart from a handful (really a handful) of open courses by elite universities (e.g. Harvard's Stats 110), the vast majority of online courses are garbage - low quality of content, insufficient coverage of the material, inappropriate format, bad teaching. I'm talking about almost anything on Coursera/Udacity/Udemy. Even if the courses were good, you still need to spend a good amount of time with a textbook and practice the subject. And considering that most courses are useless, you're usually better off skipping them altogether and getting straight to the book + practice approach to learning.
People fall into the trap of expecting otherwise, because otherwise is easier. MOOC are often used as a shortcut rather than a legitimate way to learn about a subject.
If an employer needs to see a resume first and what you apply with is not a resume, you won't even get past the first and most basic filter of the hiring process. There is no good reason to ever do this.
- know what they are talking about
- have presence on social media
It's just that their numbers are incredibly low relative to the bullshitters and they don't label themselves as influencers.