[dtjones]

>Even Google, the champion of algorithms, employs substantial human adjustments to make its search engines perform just right.

The author doesn't have a solid grasp on machine learning.

The 'human adjustments' provide feedback to the algorithm, which the algorithm then uses to update and improve performance. His tone implies its a bad thing to use human feedback.

[mostly_harmless]

Ideally, it would be a completely automated system. You don't need to understand machine learning to know that it would be better for the computer to do everything itself without human intervention

[DannyBee]

?? It doesn't require human intervention.

Simplified: Machine learning algorithm constructs page to show human.

Humans click on this or that on page.

Click data is fed into algorithm.

Algorithm uses this data decide how to show better page to humans

You are taking human input. It is still completely automated, it requires no human intervention.

[dtjones]

It is completely automated. It automatically incorporates human/user feedback into ranking.

[unknownian]

Even the startingly accurate Chrome predictions?

[DannyBee]

yes

[CHY872]

How so? If the cost of making the computer able to do everything itself is greater than the cost of an equivalent system that takes human input, then you should use the human input version every time.

[diminoten]

Monetary cost isn't the only cost.

Also, humans are prone to error and many other inefficiencies. They get sick, quit, fluctuate in performance, require attention and care... you say "cost" like it's some easily calculable number, but it's a whole boatload of intangibles that just... disappear if the computer does it.

[diminoten]

Monetary cost isn't the only cost.