4 ms·

Glad to see the broader market finally catching on to the marketing fluff train that was “Watson”. On the one hand IBM did an impressive job tapping into peopl

Glad to see the broader market finally catching on to the marketing fluff train that was “Watson”. On the one hand IBM did an impressive job tapping into people’s desire for “big data stuff” as a lot of uninformed folks talked a lot about “hey we should get that Watson thing.” On the the other hand messing with peoples lives via a bogus cancer curing machine is some messed up stuff. These Watson boondoggle projects diverted a lot of good resources that could have gone towards legit value-add research. The whole Jeopardy thing was really cool and amazing marketing, but as anyone who tries “Watson” knows the “Watson” IBM has been trying to sell is not the Jeopardy thing.

notzuck 8y ago
What a horrible review. The cancer research isn't at all what you make it out to be. It's legitimate and does have some real proven value despite the recent backlash in certain parts of the press. It's not perfect but the advancements that have been made are significant. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at other peoples efforts based on very little first hand information but please, this isn't twitter.
- code4tee 8y ago
  Not on the sidelines, I’m on the field. That’s why I’m glad to see the reality finally getting attention. As the article says, a lot of healthcare professionals that once were onboard have distanced themselves from IBM and these projects.
  - TheCondor 8y ago
    So is there a better oncologist’s assistant AI out there? Or is the sweet spot somewhere between picking music you’ll like, suggesting when you should leave for an appointment to manage traffic and playing chess or go? I understand the dislike of the marketing, but something like Watson in medicine is a moonshot attempt. Can CNNs and whatever other stuff Watson has available to it simply not handle cancer? Or is it broken? Or is the literature and training data bad or there just isn’t enough of it? I’m really fascinated by the stories of it giving detrimental treatment suggestions, I could see it happening a couple times and word getting out (like a new file system corrupting data) but if that’s really normal then something is broken, right? Maybe it’s misunderstanding the training literature, which should be a correctable software bug. I’m just guessing.
    - code4tee 8y ago
      There’s nothing inherently wrong with the technology. However, doing ML well isn’t really about the ML as much as it’s about getting everything leading up to the ML right. That’s the difference between value-add applications of ML and an expensive mess. IBM didn’t understand that and hence the mess they’re in now with Watson.
      - notzuck 8y ago
        "IBM didn’t understand that" Can you explain a little further?

notzuck 8y ago

What a horrible review. The cancer research isn't at all what you make it out to be. It's legitimate and does have some real proven value despite the recent backlash in certain parts of the press. It's not perfect but the advancements that have been made are significant. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks at other peoples efforts based on very little first hand information but please, this isn't twitter.

code4tee 8y ago
Not on the sidelines, I’m on the field. That’s why I’m glad to see the reality finally getting attention. As the article says, a lot of healthcare professionals that once were onboard have distanced themselves from IBM and these projects.
- TheCondor 8y ago
  So is there a better oncologist’s assistant AI out there? Or is the sweet spot somewhere between picking music you’ll like, suggesting when you should leave for an appointment to manage traffic and playing chess or go? I understand the dislike of the marketing, but something like Watson in medicine is a moonshot attempt. Can CNNs and whatever other stuff Watson has available to it simply not handle cancer? Or is it broken? Or is the literature and training data bad or there just isn’t enough of it? I’m really fascinated by the stories of it giving detrimental treatment suggestions, I could see it happening a couple times and word getting out (like a new file system corrupting data) but if that’s really normal then something is broken, right? Maybe it’s misunderstanding the training literature, which should be a correctable software bug. I’m just guessing.
  - code4tee 8y ago
    There’s nothing inherently wrong with the technology. However, doing ML well isn’t really about the ML as much as it’s about getting everything leading up to the ML right. That’s the difference between value-add applications of ML and an expensive mess. IBM didn’t understand that and hence the mess they’re in now with Watson.
    - notzuck 8y ago
      "IBM didn’t understand that" Can you explain a little further?