Why your job is safe: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|technology|[[File:Cricket prediction.png|450px|thumb|center|A likely sporting outcome according to Google a couple of years ago]]
{{a|technology|[[File:Cricket prediction.png|450px|thumb|center|A likely sporting outcome according to Google a couple of years ago]]
[[File:Cricket prediction 2.png|450px|thumb|center|A likely sporting outcome according to Google yesterday]]
[[File:Cricket prediction 2.png|450px|thumb|center|A likely sporting outcome according to Google yesterday]]
}}An occasional running series.
}}An occasional running series intended to pose the question: when will Adam Curtis’ assertion that the vaunted predictive power of big data is a “modern ghost story”.


Your job is safe as long as:
Your job is safe as long as:
Line 8: Line 8:
*Microsoft’s auto-correct for bhusiness suggests “bushiness” but not “business”.
*Microsoft’s auto-correct for bhusiness suggests “bushiness” but not “business”.
*Android voice recognition interprets “Richard Strauss” as “Richard’s trouser”.
*Android voice recognition interprets “Richard Strauss” as “Richard’s trouser”.
*Those splendid data-wizard brianboxes at Goldman Sachs can get their predictions this wrong:
[[File:Goldman football predicition.png|300px|thumb|left|Predicted this:]]
[[File:Actual football outcome.png|300px|thumb|left|Got this:]]
*Long term, [[technology is a leveller]] and not a provider of competitive advantage
*Long term, [[technology is a leveller]] and not a provider of competitive advantage
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Artificial intelligence]]
*[[Artificial intelligence]]

Revision as of 08:04, 12 July 2021

JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
A likely sporting outcome according to Google a couple of years ago
A likely sporting outcome according to Google yesterday
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

An occasional running series intended to pose the question: when will Adam Curtis’ assertion that the vaunted predictive power of big data is a “modern ghost story”.

Your job is safe as long as:

  • Google thinks that ==> is a sensible win prediction for a cricket match.
  • Microsoft’s auto-correct for bhusiness suggests “bushiness” but not “business”.
  • Android voice recognition interprets “Richard Strauss” as “Richard’s trouser”.
  • Those splendid data-wizard brianboxes at Goldman Sachs can get their predictions this wrong:
Predicted this:
Got this:

See also