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

241–250 of 452 posts

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

#241

Post by jiveturkey »

AndyNemmity wrote: post #148
seibelj wrote: post #4

"Machine learning" was a pretty good buzz word, but "Artificial Intelligence" is even better. And in a way, ML is part of AI so it isn't really lying. IBM tries to sell into c-suites of companies that are less technically-adept than the average HN reader. Their marketing seems to be pretty effective, at least in getting proof of concept projects signed with big names. Watson is simply IBM's ML product, but they call…

I disagree that companies implementing "AI" are less technically-adept than the average HN reader. This sort of comment has happened on other similar discussions. It is untrue. They are very technically adept, with teams of people who are also aware of their problem spaces, and technology. I understand there are some cases of lack of technical teams making these sort of decisions, but it isn't the norm, and even smal…

> I disagree that companies implementing "AI" are less technically-adept than the average HN reader.

He didn't say that. He said that the c-suite of those companies was less adept than our fellow readers. This is almost certainly true. I'm not sure that it matters.

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

#242

Post by StanislavPetrov »

martimarkov wrote: post #163
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/

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

One of the big issues here is the concept of "human error", as though a statistical average is some sort of monolith that can be applied to all humans. The truth is that many people lack the basic skills and attributes needed to drive safely (concentration, attention to detail, the ability to multitask effectively). This is true even before factoring the millions of elderly people who are unable to tie their own shoes or operate a self-checkout kiosk who are out on the road making things more dangerous for everyone (including themselves). Performing virtually any task better than "the average human" is a very, very low bar to hurdle. The question is, what standard should we be using to determine who (or what, in the case of self-driving cars) should be allowed to pilot a multi-ton vehicle on public streets? The truth is that we favor convenience over safety (and I'm not even arguing that this is a bad thing - just that it is an often ignored fact) in many facets of society, and in order to have an intelligent debate about self-driving cars we ought to recognize and acknowledge this fact.

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

#243

Post by CharlesW »

optimuspaul wrote: post #231
mkirklions wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is good. In a world that moves too quick to have review/ratings companies for everything, you should come in skeptical and be proven wrong. Its up to the merchant to make a great product, its up to you to compare and make good decisions.

No, it's bad because it drives down the potential market value for good products that could become available in the market because the market expects that all AI is inferior to expectations.

Temporarily. Once past (and possibly during) the "Trough of Disillusionment"[1], products that really do solve problems that people are willing to pay to have solved will do very well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

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

#244

Post by astro_robot »

teach wrote: post #239
itp wrote: post #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…

The HN submission guidelines include the following rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." The original headline is a bit sensational/clickbaity. That's a judgment call in this case, IMO, but I suspect that's why the title was changed.

I wish click bait was more well defined. In this case, I feel the original title summarizes the entire claim made in the article. Using the title "Claims made by..." sounds like it'll be an article summarizing the claims made by AI and Watson, rather than a push back on those claims.

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

#245

Post by acdha »

hacker11235 wrote: post #198
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...

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.

That’s probably a gambit to avoiding being easily sued but it’s a really bad faith attempt to mislead. Most people are going to read that and assume that a Tesla is self-driving, as evidenced by the multiple accidents caused by someone trusting the car too much. Until that’s real they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise something which hasn’t shipped.

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

#246

Post by GuiA »

teach wrote: post #239
itp wrote: post #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…

The HN submission guidelines include the following rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." The original headline is a bit sensational/clickbaity. That's a judgment call in this case, IMO, but I suspect that's why the title was changed.

I disagree, and do not believe the title is linkbaity/sensational at all, and find it problematic that the title was changed. It is an accurate description of the author’s position, which is that the claims made by IBM are fraudulent. Holding a position isn’t linkbaity or sensationalism.

A linkbaity or sensational title would have been “you won’t believe what IBM claims”.

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

#247

Post by modeless »

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…

> I believe that most people would understand that SpaceX wasn't already hosting people on Mars.

You overestimate people's understanding of space. Many people thought "The Martian" was a true story like "Apollo 13".

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

#248

Post by jiveturkey »

EastLondonCoder wrote: post #8

It’s an unusually beautiful written article, well worth the read just for the prose. As for the main sentiment that we have a new AI winter, I’m not so sure. My lay person view is that we see quite a lot of commercial success with these systems so the current wave will be well funded for at least a decade.

Perhaps it is beautifully written but unusual? It seems pretty baseline to me. Certainly doesn't seem to meet the bar of worth reading, regardless of its argument. I mean if you only read twitter all day, then ok.

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

#249

Post by abhgh »

Oh wow, Roger Schank [1]! Haven't heard that name in a while - he was quite famous in the early days of AI. I wonder if he has figured out a good way to marry ML to his theory of Conceptual Dependency (CD) [2] - because that would could be ground-breaking for hard NLP problems.

Interestingly I started reading the article without paying much attention to who the author is. A few lines in I began to wonder if this is going to be unproductive rant, and if the author has heard of things like CD etc ... It became funny right about then because that's also when I happened to glance at the URL and saw Schanks name.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Schank

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_dependency_theory

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

#250

Post by [deleted] »

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/

[deleted]
Post reply on HN