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

431–440 of 452 posts

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

#431

Post by akvadrako »

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #422
akvadrako wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have strong opinions about pen computing, but the comment I replied to was just giving a bad impression of the tech in the early 2000s. It worked quite well actually. Since he didn't specify the timeframe, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought it he was talking about before my time.

> It worked quite well actually. Apart from the problems mentioned in the comment you replied to. You don't seem to have a point other than being contrarian (as a state).

The commenter said that handwriting recognition didn't work well. But, having tried it myself, I know that's not true. My point is to share that data.

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

#432

Post by dx034 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #368

Had IBM sales people present on Watson as a security solution recently. The stench of BS was so bad I nearly had to leave the room. It wouldn't bother me if they kept things generic, but they deliberately sprinkle the presentations with specific terms referencing hyped technology (deep learning, etc), with the clear objective of deceiving the audience into thinking they are using those technologies when they clearly…

Did your company still buy it?

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

#433

Post by mark_l_watson »

abhgh wrote: post #374
mark_l_watson wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1980s I spent too much time trying to use Conceptual Dependency in a few small R&D projects. Looked promising, but I had little success with it.

I think one of the challenges with using CD in the real world is the "unclean" input that need to be mapped to the various primitives and structures of CD, or stuff in the same vein that came after. Without a way to do that automatically, in a scalable fashion and with minimal human assistance, its utility is limited. Which is why I feel that if we had a way to leverage the current breed of ML techniques to automatic…

Interesting idea!

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

#434

Post by dx034 »

denzil_correa wrote: post #212
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?

> has there been a significant breakthrough that explains this sudden surge in the interest in AI? Yes. Some tasks like language translation, face recognition etc. have reached human level performance. Why has this happened? Large data and increase in computing power (Thanks gamers and GPUs!).

Is this translation service available online? I tried different services recently while travelling, none of them were better than basic knowledge of the language and a dictionary. Full sentences sometimes work well but anything else is problematic (e.g. restaurant menus).

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

#435

Post by emodendroket »

snowwrestler wrote: post #399
emodendroket wrote: post #280

Earlier 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.

Back in the early 2000s, the hybrid models (the ones with a keyboard) became the most popular Windows tablet products. A keyboard is a pretty convenient way to work around the shortcomings of handwriting recognition. Most owners eventually used them like laptops unless illustrating, or operating in a sort of "personal presentation mode," where folding the screen flat was convenient. For most people, handwriting recog…

That's all true, but for a phone the writing input might be worth considering. That might be too optimistic though.

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

#436

Post by Zigurd »

Start by asking "What is Watson for?"

Watson is for helping decisions at large corporate customers: The CEO has heard of Watson. He saw it on a screen in the VIP tent at the golf tournament, and thinks it's neat. The CIO feels safe with "Watson" in an RFP response from IBM because the CEO thinks it's neat. IBM is happy with this pettifoggery because it keeps the SOW vague and open to maximizing revenue from the project.

It's not about AI.

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

#437

Post by emodendroket »

GolDDranks wrote: post #421
emodendroket wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typing in Japanese is about half as fast as English if you're good. Still better than handwriting.

On the other hand, typing on a smartphone is faster in Japanese. (If you use the 10-key input method.)

Not sure about that. I guess it depends on how good the prediction is for your text, but in general the big problem is that the step where you select what character you actually meant takes time.

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

#440

Post by kazagistar »

akvadrako wrote: post #417
rspeer wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to what novia said about your first sentence, your comment is so weirdly off-base. You have very strong opinions about pen computing, but where in reality are they coming from? No, we are not talking about the 1940s, why would anyone be talking about the 1940s? How does that make any sense at all? We aren't talking about a Microsoft demo that worked well for you once, either. We are talking about the fact…

I don't have strong opinions about pen computing, but the comment I replied to was just giving a bad impression of the tech in the early 2000s. It worked quite well actually. Since he didn't specify the timeframe, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought it he was talking about before my time.

Not sure why you would ask for advice on a downvoted comment, but then just argue against the response.
Post reply on HN