|
|
|
|
|
|
by cjslep
3146 days ago
|
|
|
It seems a fallacy to say that "machine learning" will replace the sensors needed to produce the data required to make a diagnosis. Sure the sensors can always be in a smaller, simpler form factor, but that's engineering the sensors specifically. You need data to make a diagnosis, and the magic of machine learning can't replace raw data coming from sensors. I see this kind of confusion a lot, where "machine learning" is mistakenly used to mean obsoleting sensor data instead of obsoleting the hardcoded processing of said data. |
|
|
I agree. Good thing I didn't say that :) My comment implied exactly what you wrote, that the machinery will get smaller, and machine learning will be able to make more accurate predictions from a more limited data set. Although, if we consider that the Apple Watch will be strapped to your wrist for 16 hours a day, it might actually turn out to be an expanded data set, but a smaller number of sources.
> I see this kind of confusion a lot, where "machine learning" is mistakenly used to mean obsoleting sensor data instead of obsoleting the hardcoded processing of said data.
I believe that's a misinterpretation on your part. I haven't seen anyone claim that machine learning doesn't require data from sensors.