22 ms·

IBM ostensibly failing with Watson (before Krishna was CEO for what it's worth) doesn't inherently invalidate his assessment here

johncolanduoni 11mo ago
It makes it suspect when combined with the obvious incentive to make the fact that IBM is basically non-existent in the AI space look like an intentional, sagacious choice to investors. It very may well be, but CEOs are fantastically unreliable narrators.
- jayd16 11mo ago
  You expect somebody to be heavily invested currently and also completely openly pessimistic about it?
  - Forgeties79 11mo ago
    Yeah I was going to say the same thing ha. I get what they’re (the commenter) saying, but one could also argue IBM is putting their money where their mouth is by not investing.
    - johncolanduoni 11mo ago
      I suspect the reality is that they missed the boat, as they have missed tens of other boats since the mainframe market dried up. I guess you could argue they came to the boat too early with their pants on backwards (i.e. Watson), and then left before it showed up. But it’s hard to tell from the outside. Maybe that will turn out to be a good decision and Microsoft/Google/etc. will be crushed under the weight of hundreds of billions of dollars in write-offs in a few years. But that doesn’t mean they did it intentionally, or for the right reasons.
      - Forgeties79 11mo ago
        Totally. Just sort of mulling over possibilities. But I think you’re right it’s likely they just got it wrong
  - johncolanduoni 11mo ago
    No, I don’t trust a word Sundar or Satya say about AI either. CEOs should be hyping anything they’re invested in, it’s literally their job. But convincing investors that every thing they don’t invest in heavily is worthless garbage is effectively part of their job too. What is more convincing is when someone invests heavily (and is involved heavily) and then decides to stop sending good money after bad (in their estimation). Not that they’re automatically right, but is at least pay attention to their rationales. You learn very little about the real world by listening to the most motivated reasoner’s nearly fact-free bloviation.
    - jayd16 11mo ago
      > What is more convincing is when someone invests heavily (and is involved heavily) and then decides to stop sending good money after bad (in their estimation). But Watson doesn't count?
      - johncolanduoni 11mo ago
        Commercially, Watson was a joke from beginning to end. If their argument is that Watson’s failure indicates a machine that can at the very least convincingly lie to you will definitely fail to make money, that’s an insipid argument.

johncolanduoni 11mo ago

It makes it suspect when combined with the obvious incentive to make the fact that IBM is basically non-existent in the AI space look like an intentional, sagacious choice to investors. It very may well be, but CEOs are fantastically unreliable narrators.

jayd16 11mo ago
You expect somebody to be heavily invested currently and also completely openly pessimistic about it?
- Forgeties79 11mo ago
  Yeah I was going to say the same thing ha. I get what they’re (the commenter) saying, but one could also argue IBM is putting their money where their mouth is by not investing.
  - johncolanduoni 11mo ago
    I suspect the reality is that they missed the boat, as they have missed tens of other boats since the mainframe market dried up. I guess you could argue they came to the boat too early with their pants on backwards (i.e. Watson), and then left before it showed up. But it’s hard to tell from the outside. Maybe that will turn out to be a good decision and Microsoft/Google/etc. will be crushed under the weight of hundreds of billions of dollars in write-offs in a few years. But that doesn’t mean they did it intentionally, or for the right reasons.
    - Forgeties79 11mo ago
      Totally. Just sort of mulling over possibilities. But I think you’re right it’s likely they just got it wrong
- johncolanduoni 11mo ago
  No, I don’t trust a word Sundar or Satya say about AI either. CEOs should be hyping anything they’re invested in, it’s literally their job. But convincing investors that every thing they don’t invest in heavily is worthless garbage is effectively part of their job too. What is more convincing is when someone invests heavily (and is involved heavily) and then decides to stop sending good money after bad (in their estimation). Not that they’re automatically right, but is at least pay attention to their rationales. You learn very little about the real world by listening to the most motivated reasoner’s nearly fact-free bloviation.
  - jayd16 11mo ago
    > What is more convincing is when someone invests heavily (and is involved heavily) and then decides to stop sending good money after bad (in their estimation). But Watson doesn't count?
    - johncolanduoni 11mo ago
      Commercially, Watson was a joke from beginning to end. If their argument is that Watson’s failure indicates a machine that can at the very least convincingly lie to you will definitely fail to make money, that’s an insipid argument.