Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

rogerschank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 452 posts

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#161

Post by LoSboccacc »

delinka wrote: post #106
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda how Tesla advertises autopilot as a self driving car that's safer than human drivers? > Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot/

But it’s technically correct: the hardware is present. The software isn’t there yet, that’s true. So is this a “lie by omission”? Reading the whole page, there’s this quote: “It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available.” What else needs to be said? At some point, critical thinking is required to navigate the world. The customer should ask “and when will…

> hardware is present

that's false too. how would one prove that the current shipped hardware is sufficient for autopilot? some hardware is present for sure, but is it all needed as they claim? they cannot know, since they don't have an autopilot using such hardware to achieve the stated goal. they believe it is sufficient, which is quite not the same as the claim and it is also being vocally challenged by experts that criticize the decision of omitting full lidar coverage

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#162

Post by dragonwriter »

delinka wrote: post #106
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda how Tesla advertises autopilot as a self driving car that's safer than human drivers? > Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot/

But it’s technically correct: the hardware is present. The software isn’t there yet, that’s true. So is this a “lie by omission”? Reading the whole page, there’s this quote: “It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available.” What else needs to be said? At some point, critical thinking is required to navigate the world. The customer should ask “and when will…

> But it’s technically correct: the hardware is present. The software isn’t there yet, that’s true. So is this a “lie by omission”?

Some hardware is present, but that it is sufficient for full self-driving is simple speculation for which Tesla has no reasonable basis. The only way for them to know it is sufficient is to have self-driving implemented on it, which they obviously don't.

Its at best empty puffery and at most outright fraud, but in either case it's a knowingly unjustified claim, even if not knowingly false.

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#163

Post by martimarkov »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #23
ChuckMcM wrote: post #15

The author's particular gripe is that the Watson advertisements showing someone sitting down and talking to "Watson." They bother me as well (and did so when I was working at IBM in the Watson group) because they portray a capability that nothing in IBM can provide. Nobody can provide it (again to the author's point) because dialog systems (those which interact with a user through conversational speech) don't exist o…

Kinda how Tesla advertises autopilot as a self driving car that's safer than human drivers? > Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot/

Are you for real? Statistics prove that Tesla is right on this. I’m not saying human life has no value, and I do empathise with the people who lost someone due to a Tesla crash, but we can see what is the percentage. It IS lower compared to human error, and yes that includes DUI and every other time it was a human error.

Tesla is safer for the community based on the statistical data. Also it is safer than a human driving. I’m not saying it will never crash just that it will crash less than a human.

Maybe another way to compare it would be to an autopilot in airplanes. Sometimes it fails so we might as well be angry at the airline companies if they advertise it. But a pilot would make more mistakes than the autopilot with the current workload.

Side note: if you are going to downvote you can comment on why. Negative feedback is very useful and helps build better argumentative skills.

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#165

Post by sologoub »

mrj wrote: post #146
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jail, no? Financial ruin for the company that was willing to put that BS below it's letterhead? Yeah, sure, in proportion with the harm caused. That said, human life isn't sacred. It and everything else gets trades for dollars all the time. A death or three shouldn't cripple a big company like Tesla unless they were playing so fast and loose that there's significant punitive damages. In a large company like Tesla it…

"That said, human life isn't sacred. It and everything else gets trades for dollars all the time." Wow. Uhm, slavery is illegal if you haven't heard. We made it illegal because life is sacred.

OP is probably referring to the fact that in wrongful death suits, society has put a very tangible financial number on the value of human life. This made it possible for corporations to make trade-off between profit and liability, giving the potential that someone could get enough profit to justify risking others’ lives.

Punitive damages go part way to help prevent this, but not far enough to guarantee that it never happens.

Had the society truly believed life to be sacred, I suspect we’d have very different business practices and penalties that are not limited to financial ruin.

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#166

Post by snarf21 »

glup wrote: post #38

Dan Klein shared in a graduate NLP class at Berkeley a few years back a AAAI article on Watson back in 2010 (when it actually was a distinct technology stack and not just marketing nonsense). At that time IBM was focused on question answering in Jeopardy. It was pretty clearly incremental rather than novel— Dan used the example to show that 1) ensemble techniques can be effective if done properly and 2) hyper paramet…

It was also unclear to me when they did the contest as to whether Watson only had access to the analog audio and/or image of the questions asked. So did they have to parse the question the same as Ken.

Also, it was clearly optimized for a specific use case. If the questions were reworded with more clues that were puns or needed inference, I think Ken would have done about the same but Watson would have faired much more poorly.

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#167

Post by nilkn »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #121

The most ingenious trick that the IBM marketing department pulled was to get non-technical (and probably even technical people, judging by this thread) to think that Watson is some kind of singular thing. Like that it’s a single big neural network with different APIs on it, or something. I honestly think that’s what most people think Watson refers to. Watson is like Google Cloud Platform. It’s just a name for a platf…

I'm not even convinced Watson is a platform. My impression is that it's just a consulting division of the company that deploys teams to build solutions that are in some way related to AI, with each solution or implementation potentially being completely unique from the ground up. Perhaps someone from IBM can correct me though.

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#168

Post by mrj »

sologoub wrote: post #165
mrj wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That said, human life isn't sacred. It and everything else gets trades for dollars all the time." Wow. Uhm, slavery is illegal if you haven't heard. We made it illegal because life is sacred.

OP is probably referring to the fact that in wrongful death suits, society has put a very tangible financial number on the value of human life. This made it possible for corporations to make trade-off between profit and liability, giving the potential that someone could get enough profit to justify risking others’ lives. Punitive damages go part way to help prevent this, but not far enough to guarantee that it never…

Well, unfortunately we also believe that corporations are sacred, so when bad things happen we shake our fists and collect a couple dollars. But the guilty corporation is never put to death. (Well, rarely ever..)

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#169

Post by _o_ »

rescripting wrote: post #96
earenndil wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So...one person died? Do you know how many people die in normal, non-self-driving cars? It's never possible to get 100% accuracy.

I hand you a gun and say "you can point this gun at anyone, pull the trigger, and it wont harm them." You point the gun at a crowd, pull the trigger, it goes off and kills someone. Who do you blame? No one is saying guns, or cars, aren't dangerous. However this kind of false advertising leads people to use cars in dangerous ways while believing they are safe because they've been lied to. (Side note, there is some fin…

I noticed this in the news... I can't believe someone actually tryed this.

Tesla owner faces 18-month ban for leaving the driver's seat https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/29/tesla-owner-faces-road-b...

Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)

#170

Post by robbiemitchell »

clavalle wrote: post #156
lozenge wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This already exists, it's called adaptive testing. I guess the new part would be modelling somebody's ability, not in one topic, but many related topics.

Sure. Existing adaptive tests were an inspiration for the idea, of course. But putting together a good adaptive test is, itself, very time-consuming. And the test itself doesn't do more than measure ability. The crux of the idea is to use the adaptive test to suggest learning material from a wide swathe of sources to the individual.

This is what Knewton is all about. knewton.com
Post reply on HN