If we are measuring the accuracy of A vs. B, we are implicitly measuring A against gold standard C, and B against gold standard C. If a better C is not readily available, we may choose to use A or B as an approximation, the choice of which determines our outcome.
Now I wonder:
Are the people that are sympathetic to the hypothesis that computers are better in the cases above (and ignored because of biases) assuming we made the fallacy of using humans as a gold standard?
Are the people that are sympathetic to the hypothesis that humans are better (and ignored because of biases) assuming we made the fallacy of using computers as a gold standard?
The union of which is a lot of upvotes. I can’t decide which was meant.
If we are measuring the accuracy of A vs. B, we are implicitly measuring A against gold standard C, and B against gold standard C. If a better C is not readily available, we may choose to use A or B as an approximation, the choice of which determines our outcome.
Now I wonder:
Are the people that are sympathetic to the hypothesis that computers are better in the cases above (and ignored because of biases) assuming we made the fallacy of using humans as a gold standard?
Are the people that are sympathetic to the hypothesis that humans are better (and ignored because of biases) assuming we made the fallacy of using computers as a gold standard?
The union of which is a lot of upvotes. I can’t decide which was meant.