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

181–190 of 452 posts

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

#181

Post by randcraw »

blattimwind wrote: post #135
phkahler wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just them. A lot of people think that because NNs can do object identification that self driving cars are almost here. It's similar to thinking that word recognition and pattern matching are going to give us conversational AI. Things like that are prerequisites for AI, but they are hardly the whole thing. Companies are spending billions on this stuff and I hope they're just hedging in case it pans out rather…

Many people seem to think the arrival of fully autonomous cars is right around the corner; when I say that it will likely take at least 10 years, but probably more like 20, until there will be significant numbers of those on the road they are very surprised. I admit I recently upped that number from "5-10 years minimum" after seeing the media reaction to recent driver-assist systems related accidents — it became clea…

Gill Pratt, the head of auto-car R&D at Toyota, has been agreeing with you since he joined in 2015, essentially saying that auto-cars must be better than very good human drivers in all parts of driving, even those that occur rarely. But mastery of those rare events that will be hardest to acquire, since few useful examples are available from which to train. Thus those last few yards to the goal will add years to the development time in subtle ways that will be maddeningly invisible to the public -- until seemingly clueless crashes arise on public roads, perhaps like the one last month which terminated all of Toyota's auto-car testing on public roads until further notice.

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

#182

Post by juancb »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #123
Judgmentality wrote: post #44

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...

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…

Are you saying that you see human life as something that can be bought and sold?

It's one thing to talk about punitive damages and liability, these are factual mechanisms of our legal system. But just because damages can be paid and are on a regular basis they do not imply that there is some socially acceptable let alone codified price for a human life. And we should hope for our own sake there never is.

I agree that marketing should not be allowed to let their imagination run wild to the detriment of the company.

In the case of the liability bit IANAL but that's likely to differ between industries. Some sectors like aviation are highly regulated and require certification of the aircraft and the airplane flight manual is tied to that serial number and is expected to be, correct and free of gross errors for normal operation. So liability can vary. Are you suggesting from experience that there is no liability in the case of Tesla taking into account their industry's context? I don't know enough about their industry to judge, just looking for clarification.

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

#183

Post by LoSboccacc »

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…

some history on the topic:

at the beginning there was the one true watson. watson was a way to process, correlate and provide indsight on a corpus of knowledge expressed in natural language. the technology was good but had one major weakness: the knowledge extraction part had a large bulk of manual labor needed to weed out the noise from the relevant part, because to a processing engine each bit of information is equal to every other bit of information. so you needed domain expert to proviede an initial tuning and after that watson was a good solution for the problem statement.

this process however required non technical domain expert to be working closely with the watson analysts at the tuning for an unspecified and quite long amount of time, comopounding the already astronomical costs of the solution itself

now as you might imagine like any other company ibm has a lot divisions - cloud, services, intelligence etc. the watson division due the large research costs and the few clients that were able to afford and make use of the tech was scoring too much quarters in red.

ibm is also a financial company, so they did what they usually do when one division needs padding: they started moving everything remotedly related to intelligence and analytics under the watson moniker, to drive up quarterly reports. this had the side effect that the watson marketing is a clusterfuck of overlapping and unrelated solutions that more pften than not don't even work togheter natively, but are presented as a whole ecosistem.

now, of course anyone trying to make sense of the whole thing is going to be faced with all kind of claims against all kind of slutions, without any idea of what does what.

but originally the only omission from marketing was what watson actually required and how and what it could give back to a company. but the problem is... it's the kind of solution that you have to build to see where it goes. you cannot be sure of the results from the beginning.

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

#184

Post by rohit2412 »

Filligree wrote: post #122
NeutronStar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their claim is about hardware, not software.

That is not a distinction most people understand.

Or maybe there is no basis for making such a claim.

Or well, I just put four cameras on my car and inserted their USB wires into an orange. I declare that this is enough for FSD now. I don't have to prove anything for such an absurd statement?

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

#185

Post by jacobush »

DennisP wrote: post #159
Retric wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if you do happen to be an alert, cautious, and sober driver, it'd be unfortunate if Tesla's marketing led you to overly rely on Autopilot. Ideally Tesla's marketing would say it's safer than drunk, sleepy, and reckless drivers, though it might not sell as many Autopilots.

Drunk, sleepy and reckless drives from an age bracket not normally buying premium sedans.

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

#186

Post by air7 »

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/

Claiming that the hardware is ready and we're just waiting on the software is at best a vacuous claim and worse, a fraudulent one. I can hammer two web-cams onto a rotating plank and claim that's "full self-driving capability". Just look at the eyes in my head! Now I just need to iron out some kinks in the software...

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

#187

Post by rohit2412 »

PersistentCough wrote: post #153
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the NHTSA report says nothing about how Tesla's autopilot compares to human driving. Here are two comments I made last week about this: In that study there are two buckets, one which is total Tesla miles in TACC-enabled cars and then after the update total Tesla miles in cars with TACC + Autosteer and they calculated on airbag deployments. Human driven miles are going to dominate both of those buckets and there's…

I'm not sure what "safer" means. Not sure what posting your insistence in other threads has to do with this. 10x or 100x the number of deaths would be small price to pay to get everyone in autonomous vehicles. It's air travel, all over again and there's a price to pay.

I don't think we are opposed to autonomous vehicles.

Can Autopilot not run passively and prevent human errors? Why are the two options presented seem to be only "only a human behind the wheel, not assisted by even AEB" and "Full autopilot with no human in the car at all".

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

#188

Post by tigershark »

phkahler wrote: post #110
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/

It's not just them. A lot of people think that because NNs can do object identification that self driving cars are almost here. It's similar to thinking that word recognition and pattern matching are going to give us conversational AI. Things like that are prerequisites for AI, but they are hardly the whole thing. Companies are spending billions on this stuff and I hope they're just hedging in case it pans out rather…

Self driving cars are not almost there, they are already a reality. Waymo is testing self driving cars hailing passengers without a safety driver since last October and soon it will start a commercial service.

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

#189

Post by jaclaz »

Analemma_ wrote: post #39
fixermark wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon's system for finding related products is eerily accurate. The more you buy, the better it gets at anticipating what you want to buy. ... but the larger wins they've had are behind the scenes, in the predictive modeling that helps them get product into warehouses in front of demand spikes (and into geographically-relevant warehouses to satisfy the spikes).

> Amazon's system for finding related products is eerily accurate. Amazon's system for finding related products fucking sucks. After I buy an X, I see ads for more X for months, which is completely useless. Sometimes I'll see ads for the exact thing I bought... what?!

What I normally do is searching on Google on monday morning a "cool" thing, like "drone" or "camera" and then I enjoy all the week these "targeted" ads, thus avoiding quite a few about "random" things I am not interested in like toasters, diapers, and similar.

Not that I am actually interested in drones or cameras.

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

#190

Post by julvo »

wintorez wrote: post #118

I'm no expert in the field of AI or Machine Learning, so I have a question for the experts here? Has there been any theoretical breakthrough in the AI in the recent years? I knew we had neural networks and different types of classifiers, etc. for more than a few of decades now, so apart from better marketing, has there been a significant breakthrough that explains this sudden surge in the interest in AI?

Recent breakthroughs in ML from a commercial perspective are achieving super-human performance in some computer vision tasks and end-to-end methods beating traditional ones in machine translation and speech recognition.

However, these breakthroughs have not much to do with a general notion of intelligence as they are very limited to a specific task. In the media, the term AI is used very inflationary these days.

Post reply on HN