8 ms·
That is just how larger corporations work. They probably decided they wanted to be part of that future market about AI and therefore want to invest in AI/ML st
by JepZ 8y ago
That is just how larger corporations work.
They probably decided they wanted to be part of that future market about AI and therefore want to invest in AI/ML startups. Someone sold your company internally as being a nice fit for the AI portfolio, but when you answered the question about ML with "No" the door was shut.
From someone who makes large trade deals as his daily business, I learned "Never say 'No'" (during a negotiation). In most cases, it is better to be diplomatic. So might have been better off with something like:
'So far we had decent results without ML, but we are constantly evaluating options to improve our technology, which includes optimizations based on machine learning.'
That way, some might hear '[...] includes optimizations based on machine learning.', while you just said 'we do not use machine learning' ;-)
- adriand 8y agoYou should never mislead a potential investor. Why would you want an investor who is misaligned with your core technology/strategic direction?
- Traubenfuchs 8y ago$$$
- JepZ 8y agoWell, nobody wants a misaligned investor. But I had the impression the negotiations already failed, because one buzzword could not be satisfied. My comment was meant more as advice to overcome such problematic situations during negotiations, than to mislead someone about what you are actually doing.
- carlmr 8y agoI remember every dishwasher and washing machine had "fuzzy logic" in the 90s (at least according to stickers). Just because it was the AI/ML/Deep Learning/Big Data/IoT of the time. No, fuzzy logic won't make your washing machine better. Yes, you can implement some stuff in fuzzy logic.
- TallGuyShort 8y agoI don't remember this from the 90's very well, so I read the wikipedia page. I saw the following diagram and wondered how many washing machines and dishwasher's considered themselves to use fuzzy logic because they simply kept track of the temperature instead of just being in hot / cold states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic#/media/File:Fuzzy_logic_temperature_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic#/media/File:Fuzzy_....
- giantsloth 8y agoThis is a quaint sentiment, but marketing, sales, PR is all about misleading and creating unnecessary want. This is a major tenant of running a business and living under capitalism. There is also a moral argument for doing what you need to do in order to survive the difficulties of the market in order to survive it and change it into something more akin to your honest attitude about it.
- chongli 8y agoI think you'll find that a lot of stem people tend to lean Kantian in their ethics. This implies that misleading people for any reason -- even "for their own good" -- is frowned upon.
- EGreg 8y agoI am not sure the Categorical Imperative rules out misleading people for their own good. If a win win result is highly likely the categorical imperative says it’s OK if you do it because if the whole world did it, things would become better!
- chongli 8y agoNo, it's still using people as a means to an end. It's even wrong to lie to the murderer at the door. Kant himself addressed this in an essay titled: On The Supposed Right To Lie From Altruistic Motives[1]. [1] https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/Kant.pdf https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/Kant.pdf
- purerandomness 8y agoHow is this misleading?
- logfromblammo 8y agoWe wouldn't have this problem if civilization didn't continue to give so much money to the ID-10(t) class of investors. Ideally, people that do nothing but tick off boxes in their mental buzzword checklists should not even be allowed to attend the pitches, and thereby waste other people's time by forcing them to hack around the unrepentant ignorance. But they that have the gold, make the rules.
- digi_owl 8y agoHow the stock market cargo cult works. We have already seen this with things like offshoring. A few big name companies did the numbers and found they could save some on moving their production somewhere else. Then came a rush of companies that made big that they had offshored who knows what, simply because that was what the stock market expected of a would be forward looking company. The basic problem is that these decisions are not done based on what is good for the company long term, but what is good for the stock price short term. And in large part because CEOs are paid in stock options, and can be ousted by activist stock owners.