Very sad for long time IBMers. But Is it the beginning of the much controversial AI Winter revival ?
IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#32If accurate, that severance benefit is just shameful, and simply not good enough from a large corporation. Absolutely no excuse for that degree of unjustifiable, unmitigated greed to offer so little when possibly damaging lives, especially for older workers who may face IBM-like ageism elsewhere now too.
Hard fought career advice I’ve learned: always negotiate adequate severance.
It should be a heck of a lot more than 1 month, even if you’re a junior employee. Just turn down jobs if they won’t give substantial severance agreements. Unless you’re in dire straits & have to take the job. Otherwise, don’t do it. That employer will not consider the impact that some surprise layoff has on you. Get it in writing, up front in the negotiation, and don’t waste time with firms that won’t offer it. Not worth it.
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#33I'm an MD, and I dabble in programming and AI/DL. While I don't really care much about Watson in particular, the pervasiveness of the "enter healthcare = death" equation is worrisome to me. And it should worry you, too. There's a lot of potential for good applications of this type of tech in healthcare, but the barriers to actually getting it off the ground strangle it in the crib.
The two massive barriers to entry are regulatory uncertainty and sales difficulties Regulations: Up until recently, the regulatory landscape for medical software was extremely confusing. People were sitting on the sidelines waiting for FDA to figure out how to deal with machine learning, agile development, app stores, blah blah. Startups that wanted to jump in were staring at yearly 100K+ regulatory consultant bills.…
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#34I'm an MD, and I dabble in programming and AI/DL. While I don't really care much about Watson in particular, the pervasiveness of the "enter healthcare = death" equation is worrisome to me. And it should worry you, too. There's a lot of potential for good applications of this type of tech in healthcare, but the barriers to actually getting it off the ground strangle it in the crib.
It should be seen as a Good Thing that medical is a Serious Field where Non-Serious Ideas get run through the ringer and fail.
And that's what happened with Watson.
The word from our engineers was that Watson was designed to sell commercials, not be a useful tool in a problem space like differential diagnosis or drug reactions.
I think this is good. Financial has the same reputation. You can't just use agile to bust out a minimum viable medical or financial product. You will be chewed up and spit out. And rightfully so. Because when it comes to our health, or our money and our investments, we don't have tolerance for failure.
OK, my social network double posted my communication, annoying but it's just a communication. However "my financial tool just double posted a transaction", or "my prescriptions tool just doubled the dose of a medicine" -- these are not OK states at all.
I wish Watson lived up to the hype, but sadly, our experience was that it does not. So it failing out of Healthcare isn't a surprise to us, nor is it a bad thing.
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#35No need for employees when Watson can do it all. Unbeknownst to these people, they renamed it Watson Health due to the fact Watson is going to run the entire division itself. Amazing! The future of AI is finally here! Watson has spent the last few years learning all these peoples' jobs.
This sort of sarcastic, content-free comment doesn't contribute much, and isn't a great fit for this community.
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#36I'm an MD, and I dabble in programming and AI/DL. While I don't really care much about Watson in particular, the pervasiveness of the "enter healthcare = death" equation is worrisome to me. And it should worry you, too. There's a lot of potential for good applications of this type of tech in healthcare, but the barriers to actually getting it off the ground strangle it in the crib.
I work for a medical software company which evaluated Watson for use in our diagnostic product. It should be seen as a Good Thing that medical is a Serious Field where Non-Serious Ideas get run through the ringer and fail. And that's what happened with Watson. The word from our engineers was that Watson was designed to sell commercials, not be a useful tool in a problem space like differential diagnosis or drug react…
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#37I'm an MD, and I dabble in programming and AI/DL. While I don't really care much about Watson in particular, the pervasiveness of the "enter healthcare = death" equation is worrisome to me. And it should worry you, too. There's a lot of potential for good applications of this type of tech in healthcare, but the barriers to actually getting it off the ground strangle it in the crib.
The two massive barriers to entry are regulatory uncertainty and sales difficulties Regulations: Up until recently, the regulatory landscape for medical software was extremely confusing. People were sitting on the sidelines waiting for FDA to figure out how to deal with machine learning, agile development, app stores, blah blah. Startups that wanted to jump in were staring at yearly 100K+ regulatory consultant bills.…
Also, software which cannot meet CMS reg and cannot be used for Medicare/Medicaid patients is a non-starter for the majority of the healthcare industry.
The idea that our medical software space would be mostly deregulated is a rather horrifying thing in and of itself. I don't want my father being cared for using beta, buggy, software. I have high expectations for quality and risk management from healthcare software that I do not have for some agile beta video game or social network.
I think your "bulk deregulation" comment is rather wrong. If you are coding in this space and are not INTIMATELY familiar with the concept of PHI and HIPAA, then you will be writing software which violates core regulations in this space.
Your concerns on the sales side also do not mention "RISK" even once. You don't speak even a little bit of our healthcare space. Those doctors want risk management. What happens if/when the software screws up? Whose fault is it that the software is literally response for killing patients? You also don't mention what doctors care about: does it meet CMS regs? Does it meet state regs? Will I be able to submit my obscure XYZ state form? Will I be able to submit to BCBS, Aetna, Medicare? Will they accept? Etc etc. You will be writing custom software for customers all over, because the regulations that states and even cities like NYC might impose could be imposed on a single customer of yours only.
I think people who want to disrupt healthcare forget that healthcare IT is literally life or death. Your bug isn't just an annoyance, it could be the thing that ends someones life. Regulations aren't just a barrier to agile development, they're also a life saving tool to ensure that risk management and data privacy are established in all products that get used on patients in our country.
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#38I'm an MD, and I dabble in programming and AI/DL. While I don't really care much about Watson in particular, the pervasiveness of the "enter healthcare = death" equation is worrisome to me. And it should worry you, too. There's a lot of potential for good applications of this type of tech in healthcare, but the barriers to actually getting it off the ground strangle it in the crib.
I work for a medical software company which evaluated Watson for use in our diagnostic product. It should be seen as a Good Thing that medical is a Serious Field where Non-Serious Ideas get run through the ringer and fail. And that's what happened with Watson. The word from our engineers was that Watson was designed to sell commercials, not be a useful tool in a problem space like differential diagnosis or drug react…
Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#39Re: IBM Watson Health slashes workforce
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two massive barriers to entry are regulatory uncertainty and sales difficulties Regulations: Up until recently, the regulatory landscape for medical software was extremely confusing. People were sitting on the sidelines waiting for FDA to figure out how to deal with machine learning, agile development, app stores, blah blah. Startups that wanted to jump in were staring at yearly 100K+ regulatory consultant bills.…
The FDA is not the primary source of regulation in medical software, it's CMS. And while CMS regulations do not apply theoretically to private insurance and private practice, Medicare and Medicaid represent such a large segment of the healthcare economy that private insurers tend to use similar expectations as CMS regs. Also, software which cannot meet CMS reg and cannot be used for Medicare/Medicaid patients is a no…
It's totally dependent on what you are doing. Sure, HIPAA / PHI concerns are the primary issues for people who generally make software for the medical space, but by "medical software" I mean software that FDA might classify as "software as a medical device" AKA FDA regulated software. If your software falls under this designation, as most diagnostic medical AI systems like Watson would, then your primary regulatory concern is the FDA and you are held to much more stringent software development requirements than someone that has to deal with some PHI concerns.
In this context, my bulk de-regulation comment is 100% correct, as the FDA has basically dictated almost everything in the space to be unregulated (all back office products, general wellness products, enforcement discretion products, MDDS, even CDS which almost certainly should be regulated). They have literally gutted Class 1. You basically have to be writing something that is going to provide a diagnosis or treatment plan, control an existing medical device remotely, or mimic an existing regulated medical device in functionality in order to be regulated now. Reasonable people weren't scared to enter the space because they might have to deal with PHI for HIPAA concerns, as it is well known how to do that at this stage; they were scared to enter because there was (and continues to be) some uncertainty as to how novel product classes will be regulated by FDA.
> Your concerns on the sales side also do not mention "RISK" even once. You don't speak even a little bit of our healthcare space. Those doctors want risk management. What happens if/when the software screws up? Whose fault is it that the software is literally response for killing patients?
All FDA regulated software is mandated to have robust risk management planning prior to approval (ie ISO 14971 compliance). Other than that, the vast majority of products that a patient will be interfacing with can't do them real harm if they are buggy. That is precisely why the FDA has chosen not to regulate them.
> You also don't mention what doctors care about: does it meet CMS regs? Does it meet state regs? Will I be able to submit my obscure XYZ state form? Will I be able to submit to BCBS, Aetna, Medicare? Will they accept? Etc etc. You will be writing custom software for customers all over, because the regulations that states and even cities like NYC might impose could be imposed on a single customer of yours only.
I don't mention doctor wants because doctors aren't the buyers most of the time. Payers are the buyers, hospitals are the buyers, or patients are the buyers. How many pieces of software that you know of are sold directly to the doctor?