Why your job is safe: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|technology|[[File:Goldman football predicition.png|450px|thumb|left| | {{a|technology|[[File:Goldman football predicition.png|450px|thumb|left|Goldman’s data wizards predicted this:]] | ||
[[File:Actual football outcome.png|450px|thumb|left|We actually got this:]] | [[File:Actual football outcome.png|450px|thumb|left|We actually got this:]] | ||
[[File:Cricket prediction.png|450px|thumb|center|A likely sporting outcome according to Google a couple of years ago]] | [[File:Cricket prediction.png|450px|thumb|center|A likely sporting outcome according to Google a couple of years ago]] |
Revision as of 08:20, 12 July 2021
JC pontificates about technology
An occasional 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:
- Those splendid data-wizard brianboxes at Goldman Sachs can get their predictions this wrong ==>
- Google thinks this ==> is a sensible win prediction for a cricket match.
- Or, for that matter, this ==>
- Microsoft’s auto-correct for “bhusiness” suggests “bushiness” but not “business”.
- Android voice recognition interprets “Richard Strauss” as “Richard’s trouser”.