Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
I'd be a poor data scientist if I didn't also point out this this is just my opinion. I could be wrong, and if so, it wouldn't be the first time I was proven wrong by someone more creative and intelligent than myself who found a new method of solving a difficult problem that changes the game for everyone. That said, I'd gladly wager a lot of money against it.
|
Agree with you. As you pointed out in your detailed narrative, there will always be a need for human involvement and input in regards to AI and ML, and that is the biggest problem with just turning everything over to machines and computers. The next generations don't bother learning about the actual details of how to do things without the machines/computers, so when something happens and you can't use them, the younger generations may not have the ability to maintain or fix things going forward because they've learned to just let the computers/machines do everything. As more and more baby boomers retire every day, we are losing experience and knowledge in many areas that the younger people aren't taking up. So say they do end up using AI/ML to eventually grade cards, after some time all the experienced human card graders who had been helping to maintain those automated gradings systems will have retired or passed. So what happens then if problems or issues occur requiring more human involvement, and there aren't really any experienced graders around?
And this is for everything when it comes to the younger generations, not just the grading of cards by machines. Just think how many times you've gone to a store and given a young cashier money, and if it wasn't for the register doing the calculation for them, they can't really figure out the proper change.