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:Goldman football predicition.png|450px|thumb|left|Goldman predicted this:]]
{{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

The JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
Goldman’s data wizards predicted this:
We actually got this:
A likely sporting outcome according to Google a couple of years ago
A likely sporting outcome according to Google yesterday


Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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”.

See also