I get it, but there is a little bit of dishonesty in saying it was the system that did the work. It was the system that automated discovery of a solution, but it was the people that did the work.
As I pointed out in a different post, this is an update of the established technique of delta polling. Delta polling is useful, and an automated way of doing it can help if find even more uses for a lower cost. I see the value here. But, it isn't AI, and the system isn't doing the assessment. It is not intelligence.
In response to such skepticism, reporters come up with their own questions and ask UNU to make predictions. And the reporters monitor the process. That's what this set of picks is - it was done for the BOSTON GLOBE, at their request, with their own participants:
They also predicted which managers would win the MVP awards, and which players would win the CY YOUNG awards but those don't get announced for 2 weeks.
They tend to publish academic papers about the predictions. This one is obviously too recent to review, but here is an academic paper (IEEE) about their SUPERBOWL PREDICTIONS, complete with formal statistics:
Personally, I'd feel unsafe. (I'm just trying to imagine getting in the back seat of a car, moving at high speed, with nobody in the front). That's hard to get past.
