Algorithms don't do a good job of detecting their own flaws.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.
Nature doesn't feel compelled to stick to a mathematically precise algorithm; in fact, nature probably can't stick to an algorithm.
To me, error analysis is the sweet spot for improvement.
It takes 10 million failures to find the right stuff.
But there is only one surefire method of proper pattern recognition, and that is science.
I'm not saying we purposely introduced bugs or anything, but this is kind of a natural result of any complexities of software... that you can't fully test it.
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.
As a rule, software systems do not work well until they have been used, and have failed repeatedly, in real applications.
Mistakes in themselves are unavoidable.
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it.
No opposing quotes found.