Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

#41
I've helped IBM explore some consumer applications around Watson.

We were basically using it as a recommendation engine. In contrast with regular recommendation engines which require other users to feed it data on preferences and then try to match you with similar users, the project we were working on had Watson build a feature space on its own (something it is very, very good at) then match a user profile within that space. In short, it cut out the 'similar person' middleman. It showed what 'shape' a user was in a feature space, the overall shape of the full feature space, and where that user was in that space. Thus, if a person wanted to get from where they are to somewhere else in that feature space, Watson provided a map, more or less.

Why is that important? Well, building a proper recommendation engine when it depends on a network of people is hard. Think Amazon and Netflix -- part of their competitive advantage is that recommendation network effect built by their users. The more people, the more value. The fewer people and it might be way off base and turn off your early users. What if you didn't need to move through the preliminary steps of building that network? What if you could jump to the end? Suddenly that moat dries up. That's what Watson offers, at least for that particular application type.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

#42
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be working against your own argument. 1) Business Insider is at best, simply not research journal, nor is it specifying results. 2) The medical center publication first statement says "A team of physicians and analysts at Memorial Sloan Kettering has been “training” IBM Watson for more than a year..." Seems like like something productive would be going the other way....

No... it wouldn't be going the other way. You have to train with corpuses of data.

Right, but training isn't productive unless it's means to an end. Has there been a productive end, and can you share it with us?

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

#44
post #19
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"helps with cancer research and patient care." What does that mean? I only hear good sounding phrases but nobody ever gives me any detail.

What kind of details? Like exactly what it's doing?

One the things I have read it is intended for (and which strikes me as a plausible use of the technology) is to read the medical literature and direct the physician to it when relevant issues arise in patient care. The example they gave was a doc considering medication A for a patient who was allergic to medication B. The doc learned long ago that there was a high correlation between bad reactions to these two drugs so he was surprised when Watson recommended drug B anyway. Watson then gave him the link to a paper from 6 months previous debunking the correlation. I think Watson could be very helpful if this ever works reliably but I see several difficult problems.

Number one is, how does Watson judge the quality of a journal article when the overwhelming majority of them suck?

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

#45
post #27
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of details? Like exactly what it's doing?

I think that is what the above poster is asking and the root of the original inquiry. Most press and IBM originated information about Watson reads like vague sales collateral or PR puff. The first link I get on google when I type in "watson" is titled "IBM Watson - The platform for cognitive business" [1] which is pretty meaningless. I click "What is Watson?" and get this page [2] which says "IBM Watson is a technolo…

Keeping patients warm, they actually put a bed in the server room.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

#47
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PR speak a while ago was that it would sift through research papers and books looking for relevant answers to a query - a much smarter Google Scholar. Nobody can keep track of all the cancer research, apparently, so machine analysis makes sense, IBM says.

Right, but is that what it's doing? It sounds like PR is all that exists.

I've worked with some people from IBM, doing some cancer analyses with Watson. I think the goal was to compare US/EU results(cancer get different treatments in different regions I guess). We "fed" Watson with actual patient data / diagnostics(getting/selection data was my job) and reviewed the resulting suggested treatment plans. Watson would suggest different plans, with results stats, links to pubmed, datasets etc. I'm no medic, but it looked nice. I wouldn't mind a "second opinion" like that.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

#48
post #26
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"helps with cancer research" Sure... Show us a single publication.

Okay, here's two, then I gotta get off this thread and get back to work: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-ibms-watson-to-guide-cancer... https://www.mskcc.org/about/innovative-collaborations/watson...

Neither of these are a peer-reviewed publication.

As a bioinformatician, I'm really struggling to see what is new here. It seems like it's mostly a marketing thing.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody doing something productive with IBM Watson or is it just BS?

#49
post #44
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of details? Like exactly what it's doing?

One the things I have read it is intended for (and which strikes me as a plausible use of the technology) is to read the medical literature and direct the physician to it when relevant issues arise in patient care. The example they gave was a doc considering medication A for a patient who was allergic to medication B. The doc learned long ago that there was a high correlation between bad reactions to these two drugs…

It is almost always poor practice to make clinical decisions based upon a single paper. Medicine is really complicated.
Post reply on HN