Hot Best Seller

Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World PDF, ePub eBook

4.6 out of 5
30 review

Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World

Availability: Ready to download

File Name: Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World .pdf

How it works:

1. Register a free 1 month Trial Account.

2. Download as many books as you like (Personal use)

3. Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.


Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World PDF, ePub eBook A guide to understanding the inner workings and outer limits of technology and why we should never assume that computers always get it right. In Artificial Unintelligence, Meredith Broussard argues that our collective enthusiasm for applying computer technology to every aspect of life has resulted in a tremendous amount of poorly designed systems. We are so eager to do ever A guide to understanding the inner workings and outer limits of technology and why we should never assume that computers always get it right. In Artificial Unintelligence, Meredith Broussard argues that our collective enthusiasm for applying computer technology to every aspect of life has resulted in a tremendous amount of poorly designed systems. We are so eager to do everything digitally--hiring, driving, paying bills, even choosing romantic partners--that we have stopped demanding that our technology actually work. Broussard, a software developer and journalist, reminds us that there are fundamental limits to what we can (and should) do with technology. With this book, she offers a guide to understanding the inner workings and outer limits of technology--and issues a warning that we should never assume that computers always get things right. Making a case against technochauvinism--the belief that technology is always the solution--Broussard argues that it's just not true that social problems would inevitably retreat before a digitally enabled Utopia. To prove her point, she undertakes a series of adventures in computer programming. She goes for an alarming ride in a driverless car, concluding "the cyborg future is not coming any time soon"; uses artificial intelligence to investigate why students can't pass standardized tests; deploys machine learning to predict which passengers survived the Titanic disaster; and attempts to repair the U.S. campaign finance system by building AI software. If we understand the limits of what we can do with technology, Broussard tells us, we can make better choices about what we should do with it to make the world better for everyone.

30 review for Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World

  1. 4 out of 5

    Gary Moreau

    This book may easily win the prize for the best book that no one wants to read. And that is precisely why it is the one book that everyone must read. Meredith Broussard is a coder, educator, and a computational journalist that specializes in algorithmic accountability reporting. Which is to say that she is a very tech-savvy investigative journalist that emphasizes statistical analysis. (The algorithmic and computational side of it is method more than purpose, to my way of thinking.) She is most d This book may easily win the prize for the best book that no one wants to read. And that is precisely why it is the one book that everyone must read. Meredith Broussard is a coder, educator, and a computational journalist that specializes in algorithmic accountability reporting. Which is to say that she is a very tech-savvy investigative journalist that emphasizes statistical analysis. (The algorithmic and computational side of it is method more than purpose, to my way of thinking.) She is most definitely not a Luddite. “My goal in this book is to empower people around technology.” She embraces technology and the power of algorithms, but with a caveat. She is wary of the autonomous school of computing who wants to turn it all over to the machines. And she makes a very strong case that doing so is both impractical, in the foreseeable future, and inappropriate. “We need to stop fetishizing tech.” It’s an important message. In my own words, machines will never think in the human sense because thought is relative. Even humans have difficulty interpreting reality, which is why so much scientific discovery is ultimately proven to be wrong. All reality exists in context, which means that reality is defined by far more variables than we can comprehend, much less measure and compute. The outer limit may well be infinity. As a result, any attempt to interpret reality and to use that “data” to think is reliant upon convention and limited representation. And convention is, by definition, imperfect. Pyrrho of Elis was a not-so-famous Greek philosopher who introduced what ultimately became known as the philosophical school of skepticism. It has been resiliently unpopular for reasons that psychologists can easily explain. Who wants to hang out with skeptics? And connection is ultimately what we all crave. Pyrrho’s skepticism related to dogma. A dogma is a rule or law or defined procedure or process. A convention is dogma as well. And Pyrrho’s issue with dogma was that whenever you lay it out you have opened the door for a duality—a truth and its exception. There are, quite literally, exceptions to every rule because reality is ultimately defined by an infinite number of variables that can’t be known by either a person or a machine. And that means that the exceptions can never be fully articulated no matter how much computational power you have at your disposal. Algorithms are ultimately nothing more than mathematical dogma. They can, by definition, never be complete. They will always be limited by probabilities, which is why they work at playing Go and translating language at a superficial level, but will never be the “black box” of human sentient consciousness that we all dream of. Never. I have witnessed the debilitating over-confidence in tech that Broussard speaks to repeatedly throughout my career in business. Technology is, in many ways, destroying modern business and, in particular, the social contract that employers used to recognize between employer, employee, and community. Business is consumed with reducing costs, which typically gets falsely interpreted as eliminating bodies. As a result, businesses typically want to automate everything, which, as Broussard explains, means that all of its processes need to be conceptually digitized. They must be restructured to accommodate the very real limitations of mathematics. Which ultimately means that they are often compromised and shaded by the very real personal biases of the person who made the digital conversion. That works some of the time in some circumstances. But not always. No company will ever be successful in fully automating processes like customer service, sales, quality, and innovation. To the extent they try, moreover, they risk disengaging the people they need to actually make those processes, perhaps assisted by technology, effective. Broussard has a strong political perspective. We all do. And there are portions of the book where she falls back on her investigative journalism and strays from the overall objective of the book. It’s always to make a relevant point, and she never quite abandons that objective, but the lapses are notable and just a tad distracting. In part, however, Broussard is admittedly trying to contrast the potential of tech socially and politically with the non-conformist, male-dominated libertarianism of the current tech industry. And that needs to change. The bigger irony, however, is that a culture and industry built on non-conformity is now ultimately turning back on itself, and is not just promoting, but mandating, the ultimate in conformity. And the hidden risk is that unlike the conformity of things like organized religion, technology is forcing us to conform to norms and standards that we aren’t even aware of because the algorithms that drive our decisions and are filled with the human biases of the people who created them, are largely hidden from view. And that is ultimately where, I suppose, algorithmic accountability reporting comes in. And I say, “bring it on.” It’s exactly what we need. In the meantime, however, we need to understand the overriding conceptual paradox of technology. Hal is a myth. The black box is a myth. The autonomous car is a myth (and if we give them broad access to our roads in your lifetime we will regret it). The potential of tech is not a myth. As long as we recognize that humanity is not obsolete, but it is biased.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Peter

    A long, meandering read in the Malcolm Gladwell style that takes a long time to make it's point and then doesn't make the point strongly enough. Needs a good edit.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Indra

    It was quite interesting how this technochauvinistic approach bleeds into other industries as well. As they say, not everything needs to be an app.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Muromets

    While the book title and premise offers a compelling contrarian angle on an overwhelmingly positive view of AI and the blind adoption of the idea it will be the saviour of our times, the story actually told seems at the very least confused, or at worst, short-sighted. The author's tone is one filled with condescension and distracts from an otherwise powerful point - adoption of "AI" has to be aligned with the capabilities (and limitations) of the technology, and the realities of where this techn While the book title and premise offers a compelling contrarian angle on an overwhelmingly positive view of AI and the blind adoption of the idea it will be the saviour of our times, the story actually told seems at the very least confused, or at worst, short-sighted. The author's tone is one filled with condescension and distracts from an otherwise powerful point - adoption of "AI" has to be aligned with the capabilities (and limitations) of the technology, and the realities of where this technology fits in society. Irrelevant tangents and incessant moralizing weave a common thread through entire chapters. The story of the feebleness of our current technical capabilities somehow morphs into a tale about social virtues, systemic misogyny, racism, and the author's bitterness of not being included and venerated in some social circles. On the bright side, if you have the patience to get past the style, the book is full of interesting examples where AI, machine learning, and other similar technologies fall flat or at least short of the idyllic potential. In Chapter 6, a section reads: "Paul Slovic, an expert in risk assessment, writes that we have cognitive fallacies related to expertise. We tend to assume that when people are experts at one thing, their expertise extends to other areas as well." It's unfortunate that the author's reference wasn't applied more introspectively.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Ietrio

    A shallow mind preaching a primitivist sermon. Is Broussard right? Sometimes. Only by the middle of this book I started to doubt Broussard's reason and assume this is actually a collage of Internet gathered arguments.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Pedro Martinez

    A joyful read for the exciting moment where every field has taken a computational turn. Meredith Broussard warns us about the Techno-chauvinists that try to apply “digital” to every aspect of life resulting in a tremendous amount of poorly designed technology. As the vaunted “Artificial Intelligence” is nothing more than “narrow AI”, appropriate to speed the process up, but inadequate when replicating inequality and biases from its very-human developers. An interesting chapter describes how the A joyful read for the exciting moment where every field has taken a computational turn. Meredith Broussard warns us about the Techno-chauvinists that try to apply “digital” to every aspect of life resulting in a tremendous amount of poorly designed technology. As the vaunted “Artificial Intelligence” is nothing more than “narrow AI”, appropriate to speed the process up, but inadequate when replicating inequality and biases from its very-human developers. An interesting chapter describes how the last decades of IT Technology have been satelliting around a small non-diverse group of elites (very white and very male) much more interested in whacky creative ideas than gender politics, safety, or ethical usage of technology. Because we tend to assume that when people are expert in something, their expertise extends to other areas as well. But being good with computers is not the same than being good with people. And I entirely coincide with the author’s pitch of balancing genius and brilliance, with empathy and hard work. Other ideas related to why the autonomous car is not a very good idea, or how some “technocharlatans” are not honest about the debt of what it takes to keep technology working. Worth the book ride!

  7. 5 out of 5

    Rachel

    some thoughts to come, tomorrow

  8. 4 out of 5

    Ronald J.

    The author is skeptical that technology will save the world. It’s not the eschaton. She quit to become a journalist because there was no one else in computer science that looked like her? I’m skeptical of her reasons for why more women aren’t in STEM, but that’s a different topic. I also note she didn’t really explain why in the Titanic disaster more women survived because of the “women and children first” ethic that existed back then, which is gone today (why is it gone?, is my question). I’m a The author is skeptical that technology will save the world. It’s not the eschaton. She quit to become a journalist because there was no one else in computer science that looked like her? I’m skeptical of her reasons for why more women aren’t in STEM, but that’s a different topic. I also note she didn’t really explain why in the Titanic disaster more women survived because of the “women and children first” ethic that existed back then, which is gone today (why is it gone?, is my question). I’m also very skeptical of her notions of “social justice,” a term she never really defines, and is usually a pretense for more government and less liberty. She writes, “Ultimately, everything we do with computers comes down to math, and there are limits to what we can (and should) do with it.” This is true. Humanity is more than math, and we can’t escape human nature with technology. She calls the flawed assumption that technology is always the solution technochauvinism. Then she equates them to Ayn Randian meritocracy, which misses how many people of leftist persuasion are in Silicon Valley and other tech areas. Her discussion on general AI and narrow AI is good (narrow AI is what we have, general is the dream of Hollywood and science fiction). I appreciated this: “When we rely exclusively on computation for answers to complex social issues, we are relying on artificial intelligence. …It has no sentience, and it has no soul.” Also, all data comes down to people, since it is socially constructed, and made by people. Even data made by computers, because people make computers. A computer is not like a brain. If you take a piece out of a brain it will reroute pathways to compensate, and has an ability, under specific circumstances, to repair itself. A computer doesn’t. She pointed out that all the hype surrounding the algorithms in the AlphaGo victory ignored the humans worked over many years to create the training data. Is AlphaGo smart? Its designers are. The discussion on technology is public schools, though one can differ with how to deal with this issue, she wants public education to succeed—but is this a dream or reality. There’s an interesting history on Marvin Minsky, considered the father of AI. But the gap in this work is there’s no in-depth exploration of Kurt Godel, John von Neumann, Claude Shannon, among others, who proved that AI needed an “oracle” outside of itself to prove certain axioms within the system. I hope the author reads George Gilder’s Life After Google for the real reason AI is a false eschaton. Also, she discusses price discrimination as a boogeyman, not noticing—and for a journalist this is an egregious oversight—that price discrimination is ubiquitous, and has many social welfare benefits, such as coupons, senior discounts, children’s prices, lower drug prices in lower-income countries, etc. She’s also very skeptical about autonomous cars, and recounts her experiences with them. Fair enough. But does that mean government shouldn’t allow them? I am all for permissionless innovation, as government is as flawed as we humans in foreseeing the future and “fixing problems.” I share her views on popular vs. good and how today’s society is mad for measurement. And I certainly agree with her that humans + machines outperform humans alone or machines alone, so-called human-in-the-loop systems. It’s why I’m not worried about AI “taking our jobs.” “No man is better than a machine, and no machine is better than a man with a machine,” according to Paul Tudor Jones, head of Tudor Investment Corp. I do believe George Gilder's book, Life After Google, is a far better explanation of why AI won't "eat the world," but there are some good points in this one.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Kiril

    This book started out great but then quickly turned into a sermon bent on demonizing technology, men and especially the mixture of the two. I first heard about it on a podcast episode and decided to pick it up because I got the impression it would present a fresh perspective on the promise of tech. In this relation, the book did deliver some reasonable criticism as opposed to the usual glorification of technology. The author raises some important issues mostly related to how technology reflects t This book started out great but then quickly turned into a sermon bent on demonizing technology, men and especially the mixture of the two. I first heard about it on a podcast episode and decided to pick it up because I got the impression it would present a fresh perspective on the promise of tech. In this relation, the book did deliver some reasonable criticism as opposed to the usual glorification of technology. The author raises some important issues mostly related to how technology reflects the flaws of its creators and how in spite of its potential to alleviate some of the pressing global problems it has contributed to a rise in inequality, harassment and unethical profiteering on behalf of a rather small share of people. Computers’ highly mathematical way of reasoning and their failure to accurately reflect on some of the less quantifiable aspects of human nature and the intricate social relationships it gives rise to are also discussed – as are some of the more obscure and less ethical episodes of the development of the tech industry as we know it. All in all, the book gives some food for thought. It has plenty of valid arguments but it fails to sufficiently elaborate on any of them which made it feel somewhat unconvincing. This as well as some of the rhetoric which was borderline antagonistic are my main gripes with it.

  10. 4 out of 5

    James

    If you are clueless about what computer science is? Then this is the book for you. But if you are relatively experienced with programming then this comes as more of a primer than a philosophical enlightener. This book verbalizes what machine learning is to laymen by giving practical uses for technology and reportative journalism in its sections. It has some sort of explainer for TensorFlow ( python machine learning library) but it is not comprehensive enough to teach you how to make a machine le If you are clueless about what computer science is? Then this is the book for you. But if you are relatively experienced with programming then this comes as more of a primer than a philosophical enlightener. This book verbalizes what machine learning is to laymen by giving practical uses for technology and reportative journalism in its sections. It has some sort of explainer for TensorFlow ( python machine learning library) but it is not comprehensive enough to teach you how to make a machine learning project. Overall this book is great for conjuring thoughts for a paper you have to write :p

  11. 5 out of 5

    Andrew Carr

    A reasonable argument for scepticism about the grand claims and presumed neutrality of digital technology. Broussard is a data journalist, and the book is at its best when covering the first part of her title. She does really well breaking down how computers work (I largely know, but a refresher is always useful) and the way bad data in can lead to bad data out. It's nice hearing from someone who really understands the tech, and who does a good job explaining how it translates into real world pr A reasonable argument for scepticism about the grand claims and presumed neutrality of digital technology. Broussard is a data journalist, and the book is at its best when covering the first part of her title. She does really well breaking down how computers work (I largely know, but a refresher is always useful) and the way bad data in can lead to bad data out. It's nice hearing from someone who really understands the tech, and who does a good job explaining how it translates into real world problems or simply isn't at the level tech futurists like to proclaim. I also really appreciated hearing how she uses programming to help support her journalism work, such as scanning records for irregularities in campaign financing. Having the curtains pulled back into those process, and what could and couldn't be achieved was really interesting. The book is a little less persuasive in the more generically journalist parts. Long descriptions of buggy self-driving cars in 2009, or poor, tired nerds on hackathon bus trips add colour but little to the argument. There's also a wiff of moral panic at times. The sale of illegal drugs sold online is described as if it wasn't a vastly offline phenomena as well. The risk of 'smart' cars being dumb and killing people is treated as an unacceptable risk. (When the bigger ethical question is not if they will do some harm -every machine ultimately does- but if it will be far less than what we humans do to ourselves when at the wheel). Broussard's term for the attitudes she doesn't like is 'technological chauvinism' which is similar to Evgeny Morozov's 'Technological solutionism' (from his excellent 2013 book, To Save Everything Click Here). The shift highlights Broussard's desire to link the question of how computers misunderstand the world, to how a certain segment of rich tech bros are sexist, sometimes racist and possibly worst of all in her eyes, libertarian. Algorithmic discrimination is a very real and important issue, so the argument is fine, but at times it felt more like a complaint about the people rather than the way they do or often do-not think about how their machines will act. It wasn't a big issue, but i've seen the argument made better elsewhere, and at times it seemed to distract from the book's main theme. Still, this is an easy and well written book, from someone who is good at explaining how computers understand and often misunderstand the world.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Nujood

    The book was an interesting read to say the least, it was filled with exciting stories about the author's own experience narrated smoothly with enough detail for the reader to imagine that they were there. Section two specifically was the best part of the book and Chapter Eight on autonomous vehicles was my personal favourite. Before I state my opinion about the book I would just like to say that the author's charming personality and hilarious sarcasm really does shine and by the end of the book The book was an interesting read to say the least, it was filled with exciting stories about the author's own experience narrated smoothly with enough detail for the reader to imagine that they were there. Section two specifically was the best part of the book and Chapter Eight on autonomous vehicles was my personal favourite. Before I state my opinion about the book I would just like to say that the author's charming personality and hilarious sarcasm really does shine and by the end of the book regardless of how I felt about it, I just wanted to meet her and go for coffee as she is obviously smart, funny, knowledgeable and overall just a very interesting person. However, the reason why I was disappointed with the book was that it failed to deliver what it has promised. The ever so intelligent title, subtitle and summary suggested somewhat of a comparison between where we are now and where we want to go but I found myself bombarded with an introduction to data journalism, autobiographical content, continuous criticism to people who believe in a technological utopia and not to mention many social justice claims and a couple of irrelevant comparisons between where we are and where we want to go. This I think disturbed me the most; comparisons between automation and elevators not working or how tedious it is to set a power point presentation present very shallow arguments to the challenges of reaching a technological utopia. So I would highly recommend it as a fun light read about someone who has not only worked in AI but then became a hybrid data journalist on the area but I would give the book a completely different title and description as they suggest a more generic objective criticism which is very far from the actual content.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Leah Boylan

    “We need to stop fetishizing tech. We need to audit algorithms, watch out for inequality, and reduce bias in computational systems, as well as the tech industry.” A tech enthusiast and coder, Broussard takes us on a number of adventures through modern tech, examining 1. standardized testing problems in Philadelphia & tech’s unsuccessful efforts with it 2. self-driving car developments over the course of a decade, and 3. a “startup bus” national hack-a-thon (which she ends up winning). She’s p “We need to stop fetishizing tech. We need to audit algorithms, watch out for inequality, and reduce bias in computational systems, as well as the tech industry.” A tech enthusiast and coder, Broussard takes us on a number of adventures through modern tech, examining 1. standardized testing problems in Philadelphia & tech’s unsuccessful efforts with it 2. self-driving car developments over the course of a decade, and 3. a “startup bus” national hack-a-thon (which she ends up winning). She’s part data-journalist, part developer, part reporter, part historian, and most of all, a skeptic. As an employee in an education-oriented Silicon Valley-funded organization, that’s what I appreciate most of all. Technochauvinism (as she calls it) runs rampant today; her attempts to bring tech down to Earth (as something humans built) is something I hope others in Silicon Valley will eventually heed.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Jim Dennis

    I work in advertising technology and there is a lot of the technochauvinism in my industry that the book is mostly about. There are many technical platforms that purport to do the best at what they do but the reality is no one knows anything, and many companies that claim to have the most elevating tech are only part of the way there, and are faking until they make it. Broussard’s book deals with the application of tech and AI in various situations within this context. Overall an excellent and e I work in advertising technology and there is a lot of the technochauvinism in my industry that the book is mostly about. There are many technical platforms that purport to do the best at what they do but the reality is no one knows anything, and many companies that claim to have the most elevating tech are only part of the way there, and are faking until they make it. Broussard’s book deals with the application of tech and AI in various situations within this context. Overall an excellent and eye-opening book. Some chapters are stronger than others, some with good premises but needed to be fleshed out more in a longer book. Much like the industry she covers, we are only getting a perfunctory understanding of the ethical issues that tech is causing.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Simon Mcleish

    Some interesting thoughts, in a journalistic style. A patronising tone here and there, and some bits which seemed to be included just because they had been written for something else and were available. I found the main argument unconvincing - just because computers don't really understand the world around them at the moment doesn't mean that they might not be made to be better at it than otherwise. And in either case, the connection of understanding with ethics in IT is not immediate (people wi Some interesting thoughts, in a journalistic style. A patronising tone here and there, and some bits which seemed to be included just because they had been written for something else and were available. I found the main argument unconvincing - just because computers don't really understand the world around them at the moment doesn't mean that they might not be made to be better at it than otherwise. And in either case, the connection of understanding with ethics in IT is not immediate (people with evil views still understand the world around them in ways in which computers cannot, so understanding does not necessarily promote liberal ethics).

  16. 5 out of 5

    Richard Thompson

    From the the cover blurb: Broussard, a software developer and data journalist, makes a case against techno-chauvinism — the belief that technology is always the best solution. I use the term Techno-Pollyanna for people who get too rah-rah about the next big tech fix without doing any critical thinking about what they are gushing about. Broussard warns the reader that things can get a bit technical and mathy in places, and she is right, but overall the book makes a lot of good points about the appro From the the cover blurb: Broussard, a software developer and data journalist, makes a case against techno-chauvinism — the belief that technology is always the best solution. I use the term Techno-Pollyanna for people who get too rah-rah about the next big tech fix without doing any critical thinking about what they are gushing about. Broussard warns the reader that things can get a bit technical and mathy in places, and she is right, but overall the book makes a lot of good points about the appropriate limits of our love affair with computers and AI technology.

  17. 4 out of 5

    John

    I was predisposed to like this book because I teach a class on the book's subject at CUNY, but Broussard does a good job of taking a skeptical look at artificial intelligence through the lens of her own reporting experiences. I found the beginning a little basic, but the specific examples about self-driving cars, campaign finance, and inner city textbooks show the benefits and potential pitfalls of narrow AI. It's an excellent read in helping to understand why humans are just as important during I was predisposed to like this book because I teach a class on the book's subject at CUNY, but Broussard does a good job of taking a skeptical look at artificial intelligence through the lens of her own reporting experiences. I found the beginning a little basic, but the specific examples about self-driving cars, campaign finance, and inner city textbooks show the benefits and potential pitfalls of narrow AI. It's an excellent read in helping to understand why humans are just as important during this technical revolution.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Nick

    I wanted to like this one. Sadly it never really grabbed me. It would have made a better extended radio show than long nonfiction book. In fact it felt a lot like reading an NPR transcript; largely first-person with a personal connection, jokey digressions, defined villains who the author attempts to relate to. I expected more objective history. Instead it almost felt like a vehicle for (or a rehash of?) Broussard's journalism career to date.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Sally

    Highly readable! The highly-informed author outlines the technical, superficial limitations of technology, but also delved into tech's ethical limitations and the problematic culture of the tech community. Everyone who works in public policy should read this, as should every bro who worships Elon Musk. In fact, almost everyone should read this because most of us don't know nearly enough about the technology that we put so much blind faith in.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Ayush Bhat

    It's always refreshing to read a solid critique by someone who clearly knows her tech. You shouldn't miss this book. Broussard masterfully mixes personal anecdote, deep insights about the limitations of AI technologies (the true kind, not the world-domination fantasies coming from Sci-Fi,) ethical discussion, social commentary, and tons of wit.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Max

    Some fantastic chapters in here (the whole second section is a must-read). The book could have been a bit tighter and I'd have loved to see a few topics explored further, but Meredith Broussard has done a fantastic job. She makes a convincing case that AI isn't going to take over the world but desperately needs to be developed with more inclusivity in mind.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Jennifer

    Funny, sarcastic, smart, realistic and well written : It is a serious book about a complex topic written with humor, illustrated by day-life examples and metaphors that makes it understandable. I found myself laughing and looking forward to read further, which is pretty rare. If you wonder what AI are, for real, and how humans fits in the whole concept, do not hesitate, just buy it.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Anne Janzer

    This book is relevant and important today, as algorithms control more and more of our daily lives. But it also enjoyable to read. Broussard does an exemplary job of explaining the nuances of artificial intelligence to the ordinary person.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Vera Gergely

    did not finish

  25. 4 out of 5

    Mark Congiusta

    An interesting read when it manages to avoid loosely relevant tangents.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Chant Cowen

    Meh.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Thomas Pentecost

  28. 4 out of 5

    Max

  29. 5 out of 5

    Aaron

  30. 4 out of 5

    Steve

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.