5 ms·

Maybe this is nit-picky, but the use of "Cognitive" in the name seems odd. This service relies on applied maths (e.g., machine learning), not "cognition." I gue

Maybe this is nit-picky, but the use of "Cognitive" in the name seems odd. This service relies on applied maths (e.g., machine learning), not "cognition." I guess it was a marketing decision?

hydromet 11y ago
Its almost certainly a reaction to IBM which has been cackling about how everything is "cognitive" in their marketing of Watson.
- freehunter 11y ago
  Yep. As an IBMer (not working in a cognitive field), we started hearing the word "cognitive" a while ago and apparently it has caught on in the wider world. Now we're hearing clients asking for "cognitive" and the CTOs know the word, and all the trade magazines are going on about it. It's not too different from "cloud" was when it launched. Sure, it's not anything more than a new approach to the same things we used to do, but with the marketing and the different mindset, we begin to see a shift in the IT landscape. Sure "cloud" just means "someone else's computer" but IT infrastructure looked a lot different before "cloud" really took off. Cognitive is supposed to be computers doing things they used to do, but in a more human-like fashion, taking human needs and wants into consideration. If there's one thing IBM is assuredly good at, it's inventing new buzzwords.
azakai 11y ago
The APIs perform cognitive tasks, like speech to text, identifying objects, and so forth. Yes, underlying it is applied math, but what they actually perform are things that (for the most part) only humans are cognitively capable of.
- travjones 11y ago
  I disagree. Basic research in behavior analysis has shown that nonhuman animals can perform visual (and other sensory modalities) discrimination and categorization among a number of trained and untrained stimuli ([0] and [1] are just two examples). I don't think these APIs do anything that is uniquely human or "cognitive." Nonetheless, this API still has enormous value for developers and users. I'm not discounting that. UPDATE: 0: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/pdf/jeabehav00221-0041.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/pdf/jeab... 1: http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/20501/Delius%20Categorical.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/20501...
  - daveguy 11y ago
    Missing references [0] and [1].
    - travjones 11y ago
      Oops, I forgot to add them at the end--updated. Thanks.
  - azakai 11y ago
    Processing human language is definitely a human skill, and many of the image categorization tasks would be as well (while animals have great visual systems, they categorize differently than us, it's not clear if cats see "cars", for example). In any case, the word "cognitive" is used as in "cognitive science", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
    - travjones 11y ago
      I guess it's kind of a semantic argument. I stand corrected. It seems the culture accepts "cognitive" in AI according to the wikipedia link you provided. Although, I question the degree to which the use of "cognitive" in marketing materials contributed to this acceptance. On the topic of "processing," it's very difficult (sometimes impossible) to know what humans or nonhumans are doing covertly when they "process" stimuli. Thus, I'm not sure how you can determine that "they [animals] categorize differently than us." A dog that is trained to sit when his owner says, "sit" must be "processing human language" when the dog sits. Right? I know this is an oversimplified example, but I'm just making a point that calling things "cognitive" and referring to "processing" doesn't help explain what is really happening. Sometimes these terms obscure a description/explanation. Skinner [0] makes this point a lot better than me. [0]: http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20Dec%202014%20SENT/new%20readings/Operational.pdf http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20D...
      - pedrosorio 11y ago
        I think when it comes to cognitive ability of animals versus humans we are at the same stage as biology before Darwin - assuming hard boundaries that don't really exist.

Maybe this is nit-picky, but the use of "Cognitive" in the name seems odd. This service relies on applied maths (e.g., machine learning), not "cognition." I guess it was a marketing decision?

hydromet 11y ago

Its almost certainly a reaction to IBM which has been cackling about how everything is "cognitive" in their marketing of Watson.

freehunter 11y ago
Yep. As an IBMer (not working in a cognitive field), we started hearing the word "cognitive" a while ago and apparently it has caught on in the wider world. Now we're hearing clients asking for "cognitive" and the CTOs know the word, and all the trade magazines are going on about it. It's not too different from "cloud" was when it launched. Sure, it's not anything more than a new approach to the same things we used to do, but with the marketing and the different mindset, we begin to see a shift in the IT landscape. Sure "cloud" just means "someone else's computer" but IT infrastructure looked a lot different before "cloud" really took off. Cognitive is supposed to be computers doing things they used to do, but in a more human-like fashion, taking human needs and wants into consideration. If there's one thing IBM is assuredly good at, it's inventing new buzzwords.

azakai 11y ago

The APIs perform cognitive tasks, like speech to text, identifying objects, and so forth. Yes, underlying it is applied math, but what they actually perform are things that (for the most part) only humans are cognitively capable of.

travjones 11y ago
I disagree. Basic research in behavior analysis has shown that nonhuman animals can perform visual (and other sensory modalities) discrimination and categorization among a number of trained and untrained stimuli ([0] and [1] are just two examples). I don't think these APIs do anything that is uniquely human or "cognitive." Nonetheless, this API still has enormous value for developers and users. I'm not discounting that. UPDATE: 0: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/pdf/jeabehav00221-0041.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/pdf/jeab... 1: http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/20501/Delius%20Categorical.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/20501...
- daveguy 11y ago
  Missing references [0] and [1].
  - travjones 11y ago
    Oops, I forgot to add them at the end--updated. Thanks.
- azakai 11y ago
  Processing human language is definitely a human skill, and many of the image categorization tasks would be as well (while animals have great visual systems, they categorize differently than us, it's not clear if cats see "cars", for example). In any case, the word "cognitive" is used as in "cognitive science", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
  - travjones 11y ago
    I guess it's kind of a semantic argument. I stand corrected. It seems the culture accepts "cognitive" in AI according to the wikipedia link you provided. Although, I question the degree to which the use of "cognitive" in marketing materials contributed to this acceptance. On the topic of "processing," it's very difficult (sometimes impossible) to know what humans or nonhumans are doing covertly when they "process" stimuli. Thus, I'm not sure how you can determine that "they [animals] categorize differently than us." A dog that is trained to sit when his owner says, "sit" must be "processing human language" when the dog sits. Right? I know this is an oversimplified example, but I'm just making a point that calling things "cognitive" and referring to "processing" doesn't help explain what is really happening. Sometimes these terms obscure a description/explanation. Skinner [0] makes this point a lot better than me. [0]: http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20Dec%202014%20SENT/new%20readings/Operational.pdf http://carboneclinic.com/portal/conferences/files/IESCUM%20D...
    - pedrosorio 11y ago
      I think when it comes to cognitive ability of animals versus humans we are at the same stage as biology before Darwin - assuming hard boundaries that don't really exist.