I love all these articles that frame the public's reaction to something as the problem, while ignoring or glossing over the cause of the reaction entirely.
"How dare you question the orphan grinder! No, the real problem is that you don't understand why the orphan grinder is necessary!"
I want eaton to do nothing with AI. I don't want an ai developing circuit breakers, heavy duty automotive drivetrain or control compoenents, or other safety critical things.
It sounds like you are doubting something without understanding it. Let's say you gathered all the electricity consumption of individual houses in July in your city. Now, if someone is building a new house next to a regular one, what do you predict how much electricity it will consume? You answer with the mean value of your dataset. It's that simple.
This can count as machine learning.
Now, are you saying you doubt this math, which has been used for probably more than two millennium, or are you doubting something else?
I love all these articles that frame the public's reaction to something as the problem, while ignoring or glossing over the cause of the reaction entirely.
"How dare you question the orphan grinder! No, the real problem is that you don't understand why the orphan grinder is necessary!"