Comment by txcwpalpha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by txcwpalpha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>You have zero idea what their technology looks like or what it's level of sophistication is

I don't? I dunno if you missed it, but at the top of this page there is a linked article specifically talking about the sophistication of their technology, and particularly, how it failed to catch even the most egregious errors in their process. Maybe you should read it, it's really interesting.

>The link you provided explains pretty clearly how machines are used, and that is in splicing up the documents and doing first-pass OCR on them.

Yes, and you'll notice that my comment didn't say anything about the usage of the machines, and was focused on the marketing speak phrase of "groundbreaking collaboration between humans and computers" and "machine learning". Regardless of how the machines are being used, those phrases are meaningless bullshit.

>I imagine they're only delegated to humans under a certain confidence level.

Let me get this right: you're criticizing me for not knowing what their technology looks like, and then in the same comment, you yourself are speculating about what their technology looks like. Really?

From your original comment:

> Ah yes, "groundbreaking collaboration between humans and computers", which in this case actually means "pay a human below minimum wage to type numbers on a keyboard".

I agree that this is marketing speech (which is a reality of any business selling a product), but you implied that their operation is human-powered with only the illusion of machine interaction, which you go onto confirm:

> Gotta love corporate marketing speak. The only thing that would make this even more ridiculous is if Captricity claimed they were using the mystical "machine learning" too. Hmm, let's check their website.

If you had bothered to read the site you linked (or if you knew what OCR stands for), you'd understand that there is machine learning at play here, and not just for chunking up the documents. You made empty speculations about a company's technology for the sole purpose of denigrating them.

You might think this is splitting hairs, but these sardonic swipes lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. It's OK to speculate about the technology in play, but not when you're insinuating that it's essentially fraudulent with absolutely zero evidence.

>If you had bothered to read the site you linked (or if you knew what OCR stands for), you'd understand that there is machine learning at play here, and not just for chunking up the documents. You made empty speculations about a company's technology for the sole purpose of denigrating them.

Yea, and again, none of that is relevant here. I didn't make any judgements about their actual process (other than the fact that it did, objectively, fail). My focus is on the marketing speak, and despite what you may think, "machine learning" is as useless and as meaningless of a word as "cloud" is.

>but you implied that their operation is human-powered with only the illusion of machine interaction, which you go onto confirm:

I didn't imply any such thing, but that's a nice straw man you're building over there. You know, these arguments like yours are the type of thing that really lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. Wait a minute...

>You might think this is splitting hairs, but these sardonic swipes lower the bar of intellectual discourse on this forum. It's OK to speculate about the technology in play, but not when you're insinuating that it's essentially fraudulent with absolutely zero evidence.

Ohhh okay, so when I make a comment about the technology, it's "lowering the bar of intellectual discourse", but when you speculate about the technology, it's okay? Nice hypocrisy, bud. Talk about lowering the bar of intellectual discourse.

I'm going to discontinue this as you are getting upset and increasingly personal, I'd ask that you try to be more thoughtful with your comments in the future.

Lol. You accuse me of "lowering the bar of intellectual discourse", and when when I do the same to you, it's "increasingly personal"? More hypocrisy. That's two instances of hypocrisy in as many comments. Perhaps you should be a bit more thoughtful and try to avoid such mistakes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com