Live data from Hacker News

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

rogerschank.com

201–210 of 452 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you are using, but speech recognition is amazing on my android device and has been for years. I rarely ever type anything into my phone anymore. It's a usability gamechanger.

> Not sure what you are using, but speech recognition is amazing on my android device and has been for years. Let me guess: white male native English speaker? Your Android device was built by you and trained for you specifically.

couldn't help but think of https://youtu.be/jk6gjqMrOy8 after reading your comment

anyway, that tangent aside, considering how many of the individual elements in a phone tend to be sourced from Asian countries. I guess not not using my phone, im actively subverting and appropriating Asian culture(s because yes i know there's more than one and I was getting too into character—

anyway i know that totally isn't your implication, I was just taking the expression that I perceived and the meaning I inferred from to the logical extreme to demonstrate my distaste with this whole white male native speaker archetype. sure I would certainly count myself as one, but those are just a bunch of adjectives serving to do nothing more than to elucidate what it means about you to think these things. i can certainly tell you that I and the majority of white male native speaking individuals are nothing like the stereotype you're trying to evoke. we aren't all scientists, aren't all engineers, we aren't all beauticians, and no single one of us lives in a world that is solely their own. Every part of society and the corpus of human knowledge has really just been a super long drawn out game of telephone where the telephone line never terminates and just loops back around. That and there are several telephones attached to it in such a way that physically proximate ones will simultaneously reproduce the vibration traveling across the telephone line. perhaps a bit abstruse

but I think it brings home an important point. namely, i don't think a white person had their hands on this device between it being sealed and being opened at the store.

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

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dri…

> It IS lower compared to human error, What is lower and compared to what? I am tired of this vague misleading statements by Elon musk, Tesla and their supporters. They claimed Autopilot + driver is 40% safer than a driver alone. And that includes Automatic emergency braking. Is it a surprise that AEB reduces accidents? Why is that used as proof that Tesla's software is FSD. FSD implies that the car is capable of dri…

[deleted]

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

#203

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…

To be fair, you can kinda talk to Google assistant in a "question response" type capacity and it does pretty well.

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

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I extreme in feeling someone should go to jail for that? It was bad enough when they were originally advertising it, but now that they're defending it even after people died...ugh. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/28/17172178/tesla-model-x-cr...

While I don't necessarily agree with how they've advertised it I think they are legally safe. All Model 3's DO have the HARDWARE to support full-self driving, even if the software is not there. And regarding the software, it has been shown to be about 40% safer than humans where it is used, which is what they've claimed.

How do we know the hardware will adequately support full self-driving if it doesn't actually exist yet?

That seems overly optimistic, if not an outright fabrication.

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

#205
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Safer than human hardware does not imply safe . It means this will kill people but fewer people than humans would and they have actual data that backs this assertion up. The benchmark is not an alert, cautious, and sober driver because that's often not how actual people drive. So right now it's often safer to drive other times it really is safer to use autopilot, net result fewer people die.

I can grab the data, but the surprising thing about fatal crashes are the typical circumstance. It's an experienced driver driving during the day, in good weather, on a highway, in a sedan style car, sober. There are two ways to interpret this data. The first is we assume that crashes are semi-randomly distributed, so since this is probably the most typical driving condition it therefore naturally follows that that's where we'd expect to see the most fatalities.

However, I take the other interpretation. I don't think crashes are randomly distributed. That that scenario is absolutely perfect is really the problem because of humans. All a crash takes is a second of attention lapse at a really bad time. And in such perfect circumstances we get bored and take road safety for granted as opposed to driving at night or navigating around some tricky curves. And that's a perfect scenario to end up getting yourself killed in. And more importantly here, that's also the absolutely perfect scenario for self driving vehicles who will drive under such conditions far better than humans simply because it's extremely trivial, but they will never suffer for boredome or lack of attention.

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

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Knewton is very cool, thanks for the link.

I'm assuming they break things down into traditional objective units within a standard curriculum and material that is relevant.

That's great but it is a very manual process.

Remember Yahoo curated keyword recommendations from the 90s? This Knewton approach is more like that. What I'd like to see is more like a Google Search in this analogy...something more flexible and comprehensive.

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

#207
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…

If anyone is interested, this issue from IBM outlines most parts of Watson in great detail.

http://brenocon.com/watson_special_issue/

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

#208

Watson is the IBM marketing department going mad about ways in which IBM can continue to remain relevant in a world that increasingly doesn't care about what hardware a particular computer program runs on. If there is going to be a 'second AI winter' I fully expect Watson and other such efforts to be the cause.

But nothing for IBM to be concerned about. Their marketing has already moved on to the blockchain…

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

#209
What is the point of changing the headline of an article like this? The headline was an accurate summary of the contents ("THE FRAUDULENT CLAIMS MADE BY IBM ABOUT WATSON AND AI"). Maybe you agree, maybe you don't. But the current headline is just wrong.

From the article:

> I will say it clearly: Watson is a fraud. I am not saying that it can’t crunch words, and there may well be value in that to some people. But the ads are fraudulent.

That's what this is about. Not "Claims made by IBM about Watson and AI."

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

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their claim is about hardware, not software.

That is not a distinction most people understand.

And how do you know that the present hardware is enough to deliver full self-driving capability? I don't think anyone knows what precise hardware is required at this point as it wasn't achieved yet.

So, do you think it may be possible that people do understand the distinction and are STILL not convinced?

Post reply on HN