An algorithm must be seen to be believed.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Some things have to be believed to be seen.
In fact, there was general agreement that minds can exist on nonbiological substrates and that algorithms are of central importance to the existence of minds.
Algorithms don't do a good job of detecting their own flaws.
Nature doesn't feel compelled to stick to a mathematically precise algorithm; in fact, nature probably can't stick to an algorithm.
We think we have the best matching algorithm, we think we have the best members. So why wouldn't we want to just shine the light onto just how our processes work, what the real data are, and let people come to their own conclusions.
There's a certain logic to systems, and that logic is fairly self-evident. It's very straightforward, usually. It might take a little research, it might take a little bit of industry to prize it out, but it's there to be seen.
First we have to believe, and then we believe.
But there is only one surefire method of proper pattern recognition, and that is science.
One finds the truth by making a hypothesis and comparing observations with the hypothesis.
I suppose I sort of like effects that have some organic elements rather than ones that are entirely generated by a computer. Just because, no matter how complex the algorithm is, it's still an algorithm.