[bartleby_]

This is a common misperception about AI and ML. Most leading voices in ML will tell you that--unless you have a very good reason to believe differently--ML is not the tool to turn to if you need better than human accuracy. That also comports with my experience in the field over the last 6 years.

[OrderlyTiamat]

What do you mean by this? This seems like a vast sweeping generalization. There are lots of areas where ML already outperforms human accuracy with open and available tools, are you saying these should be avoided unless there is a very good reason to use them?

[Nasrudith]

How do you know it is accurate if you cannot tell yourself? And the ML learned it by your expectations. Without accurate verification you fundamentally have GIGO.

[josalhor]

In this paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-018-0195-0) Google predicts patients' sex with 97% accuracy from images of their retinas. This was thought to be impossible.

I think this is a pretty decent example of a Neural Net becoming better at something than humans are.