Maybe not but still impressive that they beat humans, no?
> the data is bad in that it is perhaps not a representative sample of the population as a whole?
Yeah that's my thinking too
if you had a bad data set and let the computer train beforehand with the learning data, the human will need to "retrain" as they go (eventually realizing past stereotypes are failing in this atypical data set) and of course are going to do shit.
In a fair test both humans and computers would get to study the learning data.
I think the usual way in which these experiments fiddle things so that the AI wins is by giving the AI lots of training data but giving the humans no training whatsoever, which may seem grossly unfair, but apparently that's acceptable in AI research/journalism.
You: "Faster than people"?! That's a hopelessly vague and unhelpful comparison. No horse can ever go faster than a human if by "human" you mean a human equipped with whatever tools the human may choose to use, because those tools would include the horse against which you would have it compete. So the comparison only makes sense if you restrict the human in some way.
Me: Um..
:-) The other stuff you say makes perfect sense, but that first bit is more pedantic than fair, I think.