>like that I’m probably not gonna buy a second air fryer immediately after buying a first one,
this comes up all the time, but one of the primary indicators that {person} will buy a second {item} of type {X} increases when they have already bought one.
However it does seem to me that I have never done this, even when I am unsatisfied with item, I soldier on for at least a year or two before saying aw screw it, perhaps the machines would be more impressive if they could recognize what people will and will not ever buy a new expensive item immediately again after buying one.
Yeah that is a pretty naive algorithm though, especially if you can explain it in one sentence. After all that, that’s the best algorithm they got? If you buy one thing you might buy two. Pretty sure most of us could implement that in a line or two of code and save billions in research. And even if this whole research exercise was necessary to discover this fact, it’s still not a “smart” algorithm if there are a ton of false positives.
And it’s still a relatively trivial use case—-if it comes to potentially miring someone in legal issues, I hope the “algorithm” can do better than that.
this comes up all the time, but one of the primary indicators that {person} will buy a second {item} of type {X} increases when they have already bought one.
However it does seem to me that I have never done this, even when I am unsatisfied with item, I soldier on for at least a year or two before saying aw screw it, perhaps the machines would be more impressive if they could recognize what people will and will not ever buy a new expensive item immediately again after buying one.