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

A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#21

Post by wdewind »

incision wrote: post #17
wdewind wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet we have millions (literally) of companies who do not employ this type of monitoring, despite it being trivial from within google apps. > WaaS will read everyone's email and parse conversations recorded by their desktops and phones to identify people who are off-task, leaking information or talking about unions. This specifically is not a terribly difficult monitoring task. You don't need something like watson…

>'The truth is people mostly trust each other and don't do shit like that. At some places they will, but watson is not the enabler here.' I'm not sure we're talking about the same things here? Perhaps in the startup world that is common on HN things are small, lean and trusting enough that this sort of outlook is possible. The context of the article, Executives at the sort of companies that buy IBM, they absolutely i…

My point is that the analysis of this data is not particularly cost prohibitive. If you want to take all the emails you have recorded and figure out if people are talking about unions you really really do not need something like Watson to do it. I'm not saying people are or are not recording this data, I'm saying they don't have an interest in really digging through it, and if they did they would without something like Watson.

TLDR: Watson has nothing to do with monitoring + retention.

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#22

Post by dvanduzer »

MalcolmPF wrote: post #9

>“I recommend eliminating Kawasaki Robotics.” When Watson was asked to explain, it simply added. “It is inferior to Cognilytics in every way.” Getting some serious M5 vibes right now.

What's M5?

I had a short gig at Cognilytics in 2010, and I can't figure out what any version of it has to do with Kawasaki Robotics, but...

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#23

Post by anigbrowl »

robinhoode wrote: post #19
anigbrowl wrote: post #16

The failure (or limitations, because I don't wish to talk down the very real achievements) of current AI is the overfocus on building computers that provide answers to our questions. We're not going to get real AI until we develop a system that asks us questions and has a sense of curiosity. A system that can make suggestions is excellent, but as described it's effectively cybermancy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me…

In my mind, this is a feature and not a bug. The greatest cybermancy spells technologists can create are inherently safer than an AI with potential to go rogue. Why do we want to create a god when we can become gods ourselves?

We're not going to become gods by making simulacra of perfectly obedient servants. If anything, this is more likely to support the development of a hostile AI that considers total submission a desirable end state to impose on others.

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#24

Post by sgt101 »

IBM reps have been pitching Watson to me for years, but never have we seen an implementation or a commercial offer, much less a demonstration of something of value to us. Weirdly it clearly exists, or did exist, but I think marketing and sales have robbed R&D of the budget required to create a product and until they sell the non existent I think this will continue to be the case. If I was an IBM stockholder I would be pissed off.

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#25

Post by AndrewKemendo »

sgt101 wrote: post #24

IBM reps have been pitching Watson to me for years, but never have we seen an implementation or a commercial offer, much less a demonstration of something of value to us. Weirdly it clearly exists, or did exist, but I think marketing and sales have robbed R&D of the budget required to create a product and until they sell the non existent I think this will continue to be the case. If I was an IBM stockholder I would b…

>IBM reps have been pitching Watson to me for years, but never have we seen an implementation or a commercial offer, much less a demonstration of something of value to us.

What exactly have they been pitching you?

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#27

Post by incision »

wdewind wrote: post #21
incision wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>'The truth is people mostly trust each other and don't do shit like that. At some places they will, but watson is not the enabler here.' I'm not sure we're talking about the same things here? Perhaps in the startup world that is common on HN things are small, lean and trusting enough that this sort of outlook is possible. The context of the article, Executives at the sort of companies that buy IBM, they absolutely i…

My point is that the analysis of this data is not particularly cost prohibitive. If you want to take all the emails you have recorded and figure out if people are talking about unions you really really do not need something like Watson to do it. I'm not saying people are or are not recording this data, I'm saying they don't have an interest in really digging through it, and if they did they would without something li…

>'My point is that the analysis of this data is not particularly cost prohibitive. If you want to take all the emails you have recorded and figure out if people are talking about unions you really really do not need something like Watson to do it.'

Clearly, but for whatever reason you've decided that 'email' alone is relevant here, not the bits 'speech and context recognition' and 'parse conversations recorded by their desktops and phones' which are the obvious applications of something like Watson.

>'I'm saying they don't have an interest in really digging through it.'

My direct experience says you are simply uninformed about this.

>'if they did they would without something like Watson.'

Only in the context of the 'emails' strawman you've constructed above.

TLDR: You are missing or deliberately avoiding the point. Voice recording and analysis is already big business, but speech and speaker recognition are still lacking and context awareness is obviously dependent on both. That is the exactly the sort of thing that this article specifically demonstrates Watson as being excellent at.

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#28

Post by EGreg »

MalcolmPF wrote: post #9

>“I recommend eliminating Kawasaki Robotics.” When Watson was asked to explain, it simply added. “It is inferior to Cognilytics in every way.” Getting some serious M5 vibes right now.

That's a nice recommendation, but it's good to have backup choices even if they have no relative advantage economically.

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#29

Post by wdewind »

incision wrote: post #27
wdewind wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the analysis of this data is not particularly cost prohibitive. If you want to take all the emails you have recorded and figure out if people are talking about unions you really really do not need something like Watson to do it. I'm not saying people are or are not recording this data, I'm saying they don't have an interest in really digging through it, and if they did they would without something li…

>'My point is that the analysis of this data is not particularly cost prohibitive. If you want to take all the emails you have recorded and figure out if people are talking about unions you really really do not need something like Watson to do it.' Clearly, but for whatever reason you've decided that 'email' alone is relevant here, not the bits 'speech and context recognition' and 'parse conversations recorded by the…

Why would people who are actively digging through phone calls not be digging through the relative low hanging fruit of emails? I'm thus using lack of interest in digging through emails as a proxy for lack of interest in this kind of analysis - is that unreasonable?

Edit: And to be clear: I'm not saying there isn't a market for this product, just that the concept that it would become the dystopian norm is a bit melodramatic.

Re: A Room Where Executives Go to Get Help from IBM’s Watson

#30

Post by Houshalter »

anigbrowl wrote: post #23
robinhoode wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my mind, this is a feature and not a bug. The greatest cybermancy spells technologists can create are inherently safer than an AI with potential to go rogue. Why do we want to create a god when we can become gods ourselves?

We're not going to become gods by making simulacra of perfectly obedient servants. If anything, this is more likely to support the development of a hostile AI that considers total submission a desirable end state to impose on others.

This has nothing to do with AGI, period. Watson is certainly not going to rebel against you. Nor is it intended to be significant progress towards human level AI.

I also find it funny you think the secret sauce to AGI is "a sense of curiosity". Yes, as if that was the only thing holding computers back. If only someone had thought of that before.

Post reply on HN