I mean I literally warned you before you read it. Maybe instead of being passive aggressive you could help educate or correct people on the topic instead of treating them like they're an idiot. I'm more than open to criticism about this topic and I'm just learning as I go.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah fair enough. That was a bit mean, sorry.

I think the main issue is that ML isn't useless just because we don't understand how it works. It clearly does work and we can use that. It's hardly unique in that way either. There are a gazillion medicines that work but we don't really know how. We're not going to abandon them just because we don't understand them.

And it's not like people aren't trying to understand how they work; it's just really difficult.

The calculator analogy also makes no sense. You can't build a working speech recognition engine by manually entering equations for phonemes or whatever. That's actually not a million miles away from how speech recognition worked in the 90s and 2000s... or I should say "didn't work".

[–] Corbin@programming.dev -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Dude, we all saw your anti-woke meltdown. Nobody is taking what you say seriously.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

your anti-woke meltdown

You mean these totally reasonable comments that almost everyone upvoted? lol ok.

Nobody is taking what you say seriously.

Ah yeah that must be why everyone except you upvoted my comment... Come on dude. This isn't even on topic.

[–] Corbin@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Feel free to say anything on-topic. Right now you're in Reddit mode: nothing to contribute, but really eager to put words into the box. This is a Wolfram article; you could be on-topic with as little as "lol wolfram sux".

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Err... Why are you criticising me for going off-topic when it was literally you that did it? Weird.