[taurine]

This article is weird. I work with ML (AI is overloaded term) and don't recognize myself in this article at all. It seems to be written for managers, politicians, or economists or something.

It is like stating: "The function that gives software value is the ability to create if-then statements." Both remotely true and meaningless.

Conflating analysis with predictive modeling, pretending self-driving cars are a thing of the last decade (and not fully operational since the 80s) and this:

> “So what’s going to happen is that these prediction machines are going to make predictions better and faster and cheaper, and when you do that, two things happen. The first is that we will do a lot more predicting. And the second is that we will think of new ways of doing things for problems where the missing bit was prediction.”

If using ML or DL qualifies as a subset of AI, then AI qualifies as a subset of software and IT. Turning above statement into:

> “So what’s going to happen is that these computer are going to run code better and faster and cheaper, and when you do that, two things happen. The first is that we will do a lot more coding. And the second is that we will think of new ways of doing things for problems where the missing bit was software.”

Then you are still correct, it is a safe bet, but you are correct about a very insignificant thing.

[evrydayhustling]

Yeah. Article summary: AI is about prediction. So if you want to use AI, reformulate your problem as predicting the answer.

Cheap dopamine hit of false comfort for someone distressed about not understanding AI. And also a book ad maybe.

[zhanwei]

statements like that typically come from best-selling author and keynote speaker. This kind of articles seem valuable to some audience, but it's probably something I can never understand.