The knowledge accumulated by
algorithms on any given task or domain will soon dwarf the knowledge scientists have accumulated over centuries.
Not exact matches
Even though the
algorithm was not
given any characteristics ahead of time, it works as quickly and precisely as traditional systems that have been created to solve certain
tasks based
on predetermined brain signal characteristics, which are therefore not appropriate for every situation.
Tasked with constantly measuring his son's glucose levels and trying to
give him just the right amount of insulin, he realized that what he needed was a computer
algorithm — a set of rules designed to solve a problem — that could use data from a CGM to instruct an insulin pump
on how to respond to the body's need for the hormone.
As we discussed in our recent piece «Robot, Esq.: Four Reasons Lawyers Shouldn't Fear AI and Automation Legal Tech», there are critical limitations
on the ability of existing, non-general AI to replace human beings in legal practice — including the truly bespoke nature of certain
tasks, the lack of sufficiently relevant and tailored data sets to train
algorithms to handle even semi-bespoke
tasks (
given the complex cocktail of idiosyncratic considerations that good legal counsel comprises), and the non-empirical or data - driven aspects of the practice of law — involving emotional intelligence, communication, and persuasion — which I believe are core to providing effective legal services.