These examples show that there are plenty of situations in which well-calibrated algorithms can do better than many people. For me, saying that they can do better than people is a stronger statement than that; it means that they algorithms can do better than all people, or at least better than almost all people. In which case:
Investing. If you have an algorithm that will do better than all people, Warren Buffett and Renaissance Technologies would like a word with you. (I expect a lot of Renaissance Technologies’ decisions are made by computers, but I bet it would be misleading at best to describe what they do overall as just following an algorithm.)
Balancing a checkbook. Well, yes, no doubt computers are better at that. I’ll also grant you calendar software, maybe spell-checking, and inventory management. Computers are good at boring bookkeeping tasks, and no one claims otherwise.
Drumming. A drum machine is a very useful thing, but there’s absolutely no way that a drum machine is an acceptable replacement for a really good human drummer.
Grammar. Any competent writer is much better at this than any computer. (More likely to make isolated one-off screwups, but that’s not really what matters most.)
Writing. Calligraphy is a thing, and it’s not a thing computers are good at.
Store layout and pricing. I don’t know about this. I wouldn’t be astonished if computers are better than the best humans at store layout, but I wouldn’t be astonished the other way around either. I bet humans are better at pricing, but I’m prepared to be convinced otherwise.
mate selection
… is exactly not the sort of task computers are best at: boring bookkeeping where the goal is to perform a clearly-defined task according to clearly-defined standards.
For me, saying that they can do better than people is a stronger statement than that
That’s just being pedantic. I did clearly state that “well-calibrated algorithms are more effective than people in the vast majority of scenarios”, and the vast majority of scenarios include average people, not exceptional people.
Investing: invest in index funds.
Drumming: while a really good human drummer gives you a lot more flexibility, the vast majority of human drummers are, quite frankly, crap.
Grammar: the vast majority of people who write are not competent. I am daily exposed to average individuals who are incapable of writing clear, concise, and proofread sentences.
Writing: calligraphy is also something done by a ridiculously small percentage of the population. The vast majority of the population are able to communicate via handwriting only because of the redudancies, error correction, and context of the language in which they are writing. Ask your friends to hand write a string consisting of 64 characters in base-64 encoding; now enter that string into a terminal and check it against the original. Of the hundred people you know the best, how many successes do you think you would have?
Store layout and pricing: of course humans are better. That’s why pretty much all big supermarket chains use optimizing software, lots of data collection, A/B experimentation, and are able to operate on razor thin profit margins of half a percent or less. I’d totally trust humans with that.
Mate selection: contrary to your assertion, mate selection -is- one of those boring bookkeeping tasks computers will be better at. Mate selection has a pretty small number of constraints really—relationship goals, duration, children, etc. It’s also a problem that requires crunching through huge quantities of data, running correlations, and ferreting out what people are actually looking for instead of what they say they’re looking for. It’s not really any different than netflix selecting movies I might like based on my viewing history and habits. Twenty years ago, you’d have been similarly arguing that movie selection is “not the sort of task computers are best at”.
Sure, a good relationship therapist with loads of experience and resources could probably do a better job than the algorithms we have today—but that is not the vast majority of the population. You need look only at relationship failure and divorce rates of today to realize how godawfully bad people are at mate selection.
These examples show that there are plenty of situations in which well-calibrated algorithms can do better than many people. For me, saying that they can do better than people is a stronger statement than that; it means that they algorithms can do better than all people, or at least better than almost all people. In which case:
Investing. If you have an algorithm that will do better than all people, Warren Buffett and Renaissance Technologies would like a word with you. (I expect a lot of Renaissance Technologies’ decisions are made by computers, but I bet it would be misleading at best to describe what they do overall as just following an algorithm.)
Balancing a checkbook. Well, yes, no doubt computers are better at that. I’ll also grant you calendar software, maybe spell-checking, and inventory management. Computers are good at boring bookkeeping tasks, and no one claims otherwise.
Drumming. A drum machine is a very useful thing, but there’s absolutely no way that a drum machine is an acceptable replacement for a really good human drummer.
Grammar. Any competent writer is much better at this than any computer. (More likely to make isolated one-off screwups, but that’s not really what matters most.)
Writing. Calligraphy is a thing, and it’s not a thing computers are good at.
Store layout and pricing. I don’t know about this. I wouldn’t be astonished if computers are better than the best humans at store layout, but I wouldn’t be astonished the other way around either. I bet humans are better at pricing, but I’m prepared to be convinced otherwise.
… is exactly not the sort of task computers are best at: boring bookkeeping where the goal is to perform a clearly-defined task according to clearly-defined standards.
That’s just being pedantic. I did clearly state that “well-calibrated algorithms are more effective than people in the vast majority of scenarios”, and the vast majority of scenarios include average people, not exceptional people.
Investing: invest in index funds.
Drumming: while a really good human drummer gives you a lot more flexibility, the vast majority of human drummers are, quite frankly, crap.
Grammar: the vast majority of people who write are not competent. I am daily exposed to average individuals who are incapable of writing clear, concise, and proofread sentences.
Writing: calligraphy is also something done by a ridiculously small percentage of the population. The vast majority of the population are able to communicate via handwriting only because of the redudancies, error correction, and context of the language in which they are writing. Ask your friends to hand write a string consisting of 64 characters in base-64 encoding; now enter that string into a terminal and check it against the original. Of the hundred people you know the best, how many successes do you think you would have?
Store layout and pricing: of course humans are better. That’s why pretty much all big supermarket chains use optimizing software, lots of data collection, A/B experimentation, and are able to operate on razor thin profit margins of half a percent or less. I’d totally trust humans with that.
Mate selection: contrary to your assertion, mate selection -is- one of those boring bookkeeping tasks computers will be better at. Mate selection has a pretty small number of constraints really—relationship goals, duration, children, etc. It’s also a problem that requires crunching through huge quantities of data, running correlations, and ferreting out what people are actually looking for instead of what they say they’re looking for. It’s not really any different than netflix selecting movies I might like based on my viewing history and habits. Twenty years ago, you’d have been similarly arguing that movie selection is “not the sort of task computers are best at”.
Sure, a good relationship therapist with loads of experience and resources could probably do a better job than the algorithms we have today—but that is not the vast majority of the population. You need look only at relationship failure and divorce rates of today to realize how godawfully bad people are at mate selection.
I can’t help thinking of this XKCD cartoon.