Live data from Hacker News

IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

statnews.com

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s fair. I’m always curious with how people are using the same or similar tools that my company uses. It’s good to hear common struggles or differences in workflows.

Given your perspective, a more important question might be what underlying algorithms are being used? I’m only a rookie data scientist but knowing that (for example) a random forest outperformed a neural net in this case, or even just a set of heuristics, is solid information. These can be built in Python, R, even C depending on the application, developer experience and a bunch of other stuff.

I'm looking at it from a couple of levels to support my data scientists. They're primarily python-based but we are adding newer data scientists who have experience with R. Algorithmically, we built a neural network for phenotyping.

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which app is that? Most of the well known music identification apps like Shazam use acoustic fingerprinting to identify songs. They work well without using neural nets or deep learning. What benefits does your neural net based app offer over this well known approach? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_fingerprint

It uses both - the neural network creates it's own acoustic fingerprint database, which it then uses to perceive sound. This shrinks the traditional acoustic fingerprinting data enough to be stored on mobile devices, while allowing for a low-power "always-on" identification offline. It's analogous to a human being able to identify songs by remembering the chorus, just that the NN uses it's own features for both the m…

The biggest issue I have is: "To do this we developed an entirely new system using convolutional neural networks to turn a few seconds of audio into a unique “fingerprint.”

Why did you pick a neural network? What mathematical properties does a neural network have that makes it appealing to this problem? How were the networks trained? Back propagation? It doesn't converge, and worse learning weights for a new batch can cause you to forget previous batches. This isn't a desirable property of neural networks or back propagation. You probably had a lot of heuristics on top, fine. How do you know that the weights you ended up with will always work in practise? Given an arbitrary track, you can encode it? What about growing the database? Does the neural network get updated for new songs, or do you use the same neural network to fingerprint new songs and update the data base?

Here's how I would have done it:

A song file is just a sequence of amplitudes. I would do some kind of an interpolation of piece-wise trig function. Trig functions have very desirable properties: they are continuous everywhere, and infinitely differentiable. Moreover, a sine basis decomposition will be able to reconstruct the original signal very well. This is great, because now you can use theories from DSP and fourier analysis. So we take the entire song, do a continuous time discrete cosine transform, in a block size of 32. Now you compute the square norm of all feature vectors, sort them, eliminate the vectors that are within 1e-3 radius (they are too similar to each other, there's not point in keeping them) and only store the top 25% of feature vectors by the square norm. The 25% cut off threshold and 1e-3 radius of similarity are heuristics, and adjustable parameters.

Now you have a database. For a new song, repeat the procedure, and get a feature vector for every 32 interval. There are probably theories in DSP you can use to get a better similarity measure, but for now, we'll just use the L2 norm of the difference. Do a nearest neighbour search in your data base for all feature vectors, and rank the results based on hits. I can run all of this on a computer from 2000s which are crappier than modern phones, and have the entire backend run on equally crappy hardware too. All parts of what I'm doing are fully deterministic, updating the DB is incredibly fast, CTDCT is super fast, there are no questions of convergence, no need for training. You can probably increase the accuracy and speed by doing some DSP and doing the nearest neighbour search based on different voice, bass, instrumental etc. features.

In practise how would it compare to your neural network? No idea, but I imagine it should be very competitive. The big benefits are that you have only 3 parameters (radius of similarity, cut off threshold and block size). This seems very easy to bench mark against, it should take like a week to implement. I'm not sure about the compression of the finger print however. Not sure how much space 1000000 songs will take (probably 25% since that was our cutoff). You can probably borrow psycho acoustics to make a better data base, and get a better compressed representation. Another alternative would be to down sample the song to 64kbps before hand.

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#133
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a long time Fedora user. I love the sane defaults. It's just a solid workhorse. But I've been feeling pretty uneasy about using it lately...

Alternatively, a lot more IBMers will be able to use Fedora and it may improve even more. I don't see them having a strong reason to do any damange there.

Maybe? IBM is mainly a Windows and Mac house for dev machines, with Ubuntu being a very, very small portion of workstations.

I’m not sure the acquisition will create a mass exodus from the status quo there.

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#134
post #111

Slightly over a year back, we were contacted by IBM to try out Watson under some program for startups. Starting out, they asked us to give them a try. We gave them a NLP related task and they were confident they would be able to do a good job of it. After multiple meetings over the next 2 months, they barely produced any useful output. In the meantime, an intern with us got a pretty decent solution using just Python.…

You know, it would be very profitable for someone to profess an expertise in X, reach out to various companies to help them use X to solve their problems, then simultaneously gain experience in X while patenting the heck out of any problems solved with X.

That's roughly how I broke in to technical work, modulo the patents. 25 years later I actually do feel at home in particular domains. But I was a young college dropout in the early 90s, and while I never outright misrepresented my experience, I did tell myself that nobody else had any idea how that stuff worked either. (Which I tend to believe more now than I did then, but for different reasons...)

As programming and systems engineering slowly formalizes, it seems to me that's getting harder to do. I see fewer self-taught folks in their early-mid 20s these days at least, although I could be observing my personal bias from aging. Anyone else have an idea?

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#135
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Deep learning and machine learning don’t work. Quantitative math will always prevail, I have a neural net onboard my phone which automatically detects songs offline and tells me what they are. Is that semantically 'quantitative math' and not machine learning?

Quantitative math, or applied math isn't based on fitting data to an arbitrary mathematical structure. It's looking at real life, and deriving the mathematical laws that govern what you see. You could have a neural net predict planetary motion. However, it doesn't know jack shit about physics. >I have a neural net onboard my phone which automatically detects songs offline and tells me what they are. MP3 uses somethin…

> It's looking at real life

Collecting observations aka data.

> deriving the mathematical laws that govern what you see

Fitting a model.

> Your neural network doesn't tell you what features make songs distinct

It literally learns better features that you could ever come up with by hand. This is why CNNs do better in computer vision that hand engineered filters.

> I guarantee you they'd do a better job, and their models would work on a commadore64, with real time training.

LOL if you think that a room full of people can listen to TBs of audio data, decide what mathematical functions when combined together are better descriptors of that data than a DL model learning its features.

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#136

Good. Focus on the use cases that actually work, namely a chatbot for handling customer service questions and an enterprise search engine.

Can’t tell if sarcasm, but IBM’s had massive headache and trouble in this segment too. Good customer service agents are expensive. Bad ones are cheaper. But both still have a far higher success rate than conversational bots do. And a hybrid approach is, again, harder than one would initially assume (you know... why it’s painful and infuriating to press fifteen numbers on the phone to get to a real person? Same concept)

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#137

a lot of these AI companies products are really terrible. Has anyone ever tried the AI API models from clarifai ? Just so unaccurate. It seems like a scam. I've also had a really bad experience with watson's speech to text apis.

Deep learning and machine learning don’t work. Quantitative math will always prevail, as it always has. Unfortunately, mathematical research isn’t there yet. We don’t have models for vision, audition and linguistics. Neuroscience and psychology are in their infancy, a good analogy would compare these fields to where physics was pre-Newton, Galileo era of understanding. I suspect that in the decades to come, these fie…

I guess it depends on... what "work" means. So I worked on Deep Networks for quantum chemistry (I'm not a physicist or chemist but) I can tell you people were ecstatic about the possibility that the approximations that the neural nets come up with might get closer to real physics than current approximations right now. This w/o any needed advancements. Some challenges are so difficult in these areas that approximations are the best that are possible. It's kind of similar to drug discovery now.. like if there are models which can help narrow down potential molecules / targets, that has tremendous potential even if the system needs to be double checked by a person. So it's hard to see "don't work" as anything but buzzy. BUT I will agree with you neuroscience will help develop our understanding of cognition.

I just wanted to blast these other applications, because I think people get this idea that AI has to be AI for anything interesting to happen... but there are really niche applications where people don't think these tools are experimental. And what you describe may already be happening, Geoff Hinton's critique of modern deep nets seems to be a call to get more biological. (Thinking of capsules nets).

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#138
I work with a group using machine learning for drug discovery (I'm not a biologist/chemist) but the bio people around me loved to talk poorly about Watson's drug discovery tool.

Lots of focus on the algorithms in the comments here, but from what I could glean generally they lacked domain experts when developing the datasets... we spend 90% just finding the best data... and even then it's tricky. I think they may have had lower standards for the input into the system... garbage in garbage out.

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#139

Slightly over a year back, we were contacted by IBM to try out Watson under some program for startups. Starting out, they asked us to give them a try. We gave them a NLP related task and they were confident they would be able to do a good job of it. After multiple meetings over the next 2 months, they barely produced any useful output. In the meantime, an intern with us got a pretty decent solution using just Python.…

Python is included in the most recent versions of Watson Studio ML. Were Jupyter notebooks included when you originally tried the tasks? I’m curious why the included python didn’t work and the standalone did.

The intern probably had direct access to the data and access to the people with domain knowledge inside the company.

The engineers at IBM were probably separated from the problem by many layers of bureaucracy (meetings, project managers, technical specs).

Even working inside a company, without access to the right data and the right people you aren’t going to get anywhere.

Re: IBM halting sales of Watson AI tool for drug discovery

#140

Slightly over a year back, we were contacted by IBM to try out Watson under some program for startups. Starting out, they asked us to give them a try. We gave them a NLP related task and they were confident they would be able to do a good job of it. After multiple meetings over the next 2 months, they barely produced any useful output. In the meantime, an intern with us got a pretty decent solution using just Python.…

Wow, I have been in this exact situation as an intern
Post reply on HN