The piece is welcome anti-hype, but, what? How can a true expert in the field say something like this? Or, maybe I should tell my colleague who is working on ML for diagnostic radiology to think of voxels as, uh, words?
IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
341–350 of 452 posts
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
if we ask what the reasonable expectation is after an advertisement tells a customer that the capability "exceeds human safety" I would say that the average customer thinks of a fully automated system. This couldn't be further from the truth as automated vehicles still suffer from edge cases (remember the lethal accident involving a concrete pillar) where humans can easily make better decisions. A system that is adve…
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#343OT from the headline, but I take issue with the author's claim that Bob Dylan's work doesn't relate to the theme "love fades". Dylan has had a vast career beyond his protest song days, and I'd argue that one of his best albums, "Blood on the Tracks" would be accurately summed up as "love fades".
This isn't a slight against Dylan, he's amazing, but perhaps it's an unfair example to judge an AI by how it figures out those lyrics. There's some very intentionally abstract content, some inspired by cut-up poetry of the beat movement which literally uses randomized words to induce pareidolia and free-association. Even with cognition, you can't correctly interpret those ideas--you form your own unique and subjective perception of them.
Would we even be able to tell if we invented a computer with proper appreciation for absurdity?
But on the subject of IBM: yes, they are making sensationalist ads.
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not sure how we fix that How about prosecuting them for false advertising? Seems like a classic case, albeit in a new domain.
Red Bull doesn't actually give you wings. Ads are metaphors.
False advertising is claiming to be something you are not, raising false expectations.
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not even convinced Watson is a platform. My impression is that it's just a consulting division of the company that deploys teams to build solutions that are in some way related to AI, with each solution or implementation potentially being completely unique from the ground up. Perhaps someone from IBM can correct me though.
I'm currently sitting in a meeting about implementing the Watson Enterprise Search product in my company and that is more or less the impression I've gotten. They sell it as a platform that is easy to customize and then once you're in they bill you tons of hours to help you because the system is indecipherable and poorly documented.
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#346Dear engineers, merit is useless when you're trying to sell something. Authority is king, and people remember emotion and hyperbole. Marketing and sales is almost always about representing authority regardless of merit. The only thing that matters after a Watson sale is if Watson can help solve the problems the customers have.
Obviously it takes a legal professional to judge where that line falls, but for something as specialized as this it's hard for laypeople to appreciate the distinction between stretching the truth with enthusiastic self-promotion and full-on false advertising. It's interesting to think about.
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
Red Bull doesn't actually give you wings. Ads are metaphors.
No, the Red Bull ad _uses_ a metaphor. False advertising is claiming to be something you are not, raising false expectations.
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got a two-in-one Windows notebook and I was really, really impressed with the handwriting recognition. It can even read my cursive with like 95% accuracy, which I never imagined. That said, it's still slower than typing.
> it's still slower than typing In alphabetic languages. What about Chinese, or Japanese?
For Japanese there are keyboard-based romaji and kana based input methods.
The correct Hanzi/Kanji is either inferred from context or, as a back-up, selected by the user.
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a previous job I looked into the viability of pen computing, specifically which companies had succeeded commercially with a pen-based interface. A lot of folks are too young to know this, but there was a time when it was accepted wisdom that much of personal computing would eventually converge to a pen-based interface, with the primary enabling technology being handwriting recognition. What I found is that compute…
I've always thought it'd be nice to be able to code at the speed of thought - you can often envisage the code or classes that'll make up part of a solution, it's just so slow filtering that through your fingers and the keyboard; if the neural interface 'thing' could be solved that'd be a winner I think, both for coding and manipulating the 'UI'. It seems within the bounds of possibility to me (from having no experien…
This is based on my experience with the Muse [1] headset, which has 4 electrodes plus a reference electrode. I know there are similar devices with around a dozen or so electrodes, but I can't imagine they're a significant improvement.
So I think we're still a long way off from what you're describing :(
Re: IBM is not doing "cognitive computing" with Watson (2016)
#350Anyway none of the company that pretend doing AI are actually doing AI. AI nowadays is pure branding bullshit.
Personally I define AI as software that you "train" rather than "program". In the sense that neural nets and other ML tools function as black boxes rather than explicit logic. By that definition, AI is a real thing—it's built on top of programming that uses compilers and languages and ones and zeros—but it's different and it's valuable . To say it's all bullshit, I feel, is to cut yourself off from new skills. Kind o…
I like this definition. It covers things that are AI but not ML, like DSS / rules engines. I've built two fairly sophisticated DSS before but haven't messed with ML much. It seems interesting, but I haven't had the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_support_system
Eliza is the first AI program I came in contact with on the Commodore. It was built in the 60s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
AI is a very broad subject and ML is just a particular (promising) technique to perform AI.