TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A.I. wins the Superfecta at the Kentucky Derby, turns $20 bet into $11k

26 点作者 hbrid大约 9 年前

8 条评论

pboutros大约 9 年前
When &#x27;artificial intelligence&#x27; is the same thing as &#x27;crowdsourcing and averaging&#x27;...<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JKNVwXU2rrI" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=JKNVwXU2rrI</a><p>This is misleading. It&#x27;s just Wisdom of the Crowd stuff. (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wisdom_of_the_crowd" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wisdom_of_the_crowd</a>)
评论 #11663218 未加载
评论 #11663131 未加载
LargeWu大约 9 年前
This was a derby where the top horses finished in the exact order they were favored. Nyquist went off at 2-1, which by Derby standards is a huge favorite. Exaggerator finished second, and was 5-1. Gun Runner finished third at 10-1. Mohaymen finished 4th at 12-1.<p>This almost NEVER happens in the Kentucky Derby, which is known for being a wildly unpredictable race. They simply bet &quot;the chalk&quot; (gambling slang for favorites), which by definition is the crowdsourced results, since odds are determined by the relative bets placed by the public. They could have looked at the top 5 horses (there was one other horse at 12-1), bet them in order of odds for $2, and come up with the same result. The only reason the winning ticket was worth so much is because of the insane amount of money bet on this race.<p>Prediction: Next year&#x27;s &#x27;crowdsourced&#x27; prediction will closely match how the betting shakes out, and it will fail, because that&#x27;s how horse racing works. Now, if they can come up with results that are profitable over time for a large amount of races, then I&#x27;ll start to be impressed.
评论 #11663385 未加载
评论 #11663730 未加载
powera大约 9 年前
This is a completely irrelevant achievement. Nobody can reasonably expect this to be repeatable, and if enough people make predictions somebody will get it right.<p>It&#x27;s so blatantly irrelevant, I assume this company only cares about selling and not at all about their technology being able to do anything better than chance.
评论 #11663054 未加载
评论 #11663155 未加载
评论 #11669243 未加载
daveguy大约 9 年前
The derby has 20 horses in the competition. Winning the superfecta requires picking the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th places in correct order.<p>The possible ways to choose that ordering are 20 * 19 * 18 * 17 or 116,280 combinations. So, a 1 in 116,280 chance of winning (which is why it pays about 11,000x -- bookies get to keep the rest!). If this crowd-sourced horse pickin&#x27; works twice that would be about 1 in 13.521 billion odds. So, if it can do it twice there might be something to it. Doing it once isn&#x27;t really that big of odds. If the favorite gets upset (Nyquist this time) then the crowdsource probably loses. Not sure how often that happens, but it probably isn&#x27;t particularly rare.
评论 #11663208 未加载
评论 #11663561 未加载
carapace大约 9 年前
Psychologically speaking no one gives a crap whether this is &quot;really AI&quot; or not. There are a lot of people who will hear about this and get very excited about learning computers. This is a big deal (regardless of what&#x27;s actually in the box.)
joshagogo大约 9 年前
No, this is not repeatable to nail the Superfecta of the Kentucky Derby (or pick a perfect March Madness bracket for that matter). The point is that this platform seems to outperform the experts. And every once in a while, they might nail it perfectly.
dragontamer大约 9 年前
This isn&#x27;t an AI. UNU.ai looks like a discussion platform or wisdom-of-the-crowds thing.
quux大约 9 年前
Is this really an AI? Or is it just harnessing the wisdom of the crowd?