As you read Steve Lohr's article "Algorithms Get a Human Hand in Steering Web" (link), recall what I wrote when discussing David Brooks's piece on Big Data (link):
The biggest issue with Brooks's column is the incessant use of the flawed man versus machine dichotomy. He warns: "It's foolish to swap the amazing machine in your skull for the crude machine on your desk." The machine he has in his mind is the science-fictional, self-sufficient, intelligent computer, as opposed to the algorithmic, dumb-and-dumber computer as it exists today and for the last many decades. A more appropriate analogy of today's computer (and of the foreseeable future) is a machine that the human brain creates to automate mechanical, repetitious tasks at scale. This machine cannot function without human piloting so it's man versus man-plus-machine, not man versus machine.
At the Purdue talk, the students asked if I'm a disbeliever in machine learning. I believe in the mixed approach which leverage human creativity together with machine efficiency.
Comments