Slashdot Mirror


IT Snake Oil — Six Tech Cure-Alls That Went Bunk

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Dan Tynan surveys six 'transformational' tech-panacea sales pitches that have left egg on at least some IT department faces. Billed with legendary promises, each of the six technologies — five old, one new — has earned the dubious distinction of being the hype king of its respective era, falling far short of legendary promises. Consultant greed, analyst oversight, dirty vendor tricks — 'the one thing you can count on in the land of IT is a slick vendor presentation and a whole lot of hype. Eras shift, technologies change, but the sales pitch always sounds eerily familiar. In virtually every decade there's at least one transformational technology that promises to revolutionize the enterprise, slash operational costs, reduce capital expenditures, align your IT initiatives with your core business practices, boost employee productivity, and leave your breath clean and minty fresh.' Today, cloud computing, virtualization, and tablet PCs are vying for the hype crown." What other horrible hype stories do some of our seasoned vets have?

22 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bad news is that artificial intelligence has yet to fully deliver on its promises.

    Only idiots, marketers, businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines. The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps. So many forms of automation are technically basic artificial intelligence, it's just very simple artificial intelligence. While you might want to argue that the things we benefit from are heuristics, statistics and messes of if/then decision trees, successful AI is nothing more than that. Everyone reading this enjoys benefits of AI but you probably don't know it. For instance, your hand written mail is most likely read by a machine that uses optical character recognition to decide where it goes with a pretty good success rate and confidence factor to fail over to humans. Recommendation systems are often based on AI algorithms. I mean, the article even says this:

    The ability of your bank's financial software to detect potentially fraudulent activity on your accounts or alter your credit score when you miss a mortgage payment are just two of many common examples of AI at work, says Mow. Speech and handwriting recognition, business process management, data mining, and medical diagnostics -- they all owe a debt to AI.

    Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind. I don't ever recall reading anything other than fiction claiming that humans would soon be replaced completely by thinking machines.

    In short, I don't think it's fair to put it in this list as it has had success. It's easy to dismiss AI if the only person you hear talking about it is the cult-like Ray Kurzweil but I assure you the field is a valid one (unlike CASE or ERP). In short, AI will never die because the list of applications -- though small -- slowly but surely grows. It has not gone 'bunk' (whatever the hell that means). You can say expert systems have failed to keep their promises but not AI on the whole. The only thing that's left a sour taste in your mouth is salesmen and businessmen promising you something they simply cannot deliver on. And that's nothing new nor anything specific to AI.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ERP could work if the vendors would realistically deal with GIGO.

      Unless you lock down the permissions so tightly that the system is unusable, your users will enter bad data. They'll add new entries for objects that already exist, they'll misspell the name of an object and then create a new object instead of editing the one they just created. They'll make every possible data entry error you can imagine, and plenty that you can't.

      We'd see a lot more progress in business software applications if all vendors would follow two rules:

      1. Every piece of data that comes from the user must be editable in the future
      2. Any interface that allows a user to create a new database entry MUST provide a method to merge duplicate entries.
    2. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've never worked for a software company but as the "computer guy" I got to help move people from the "emailing spreadsheets around" workflow to basic MS Access database applications (I know just enough about databases to be horrified about the idea of using Access for critical business functions but it's better than Excel).

      As the maintenance manager of a factory I got to help the plant manager make software purchasing decisions. I've come to the conclusion that mid-sized to large corporations should just bite the bullet and hire their own programmers. If it makes sense to design your product and design your own assembly lines and design your own tooling, jigs and fixtures then it makes sense to design your own software. Any cost savings you can achieve by outsourcing to a more specialized company never seems to materalize.

    3. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One good example is speech recognition. This was a hot topic of research in the 70s. Now its a $20 DSP chip.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    4. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by murdocj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity... did you ever try to find out WHY people were making entries with invalid phone numbers? Is it at all possible that instead of your users being idiots, they HAD to make an entry, but the phone number was one piece of data that simply wasn't available?

      If I've learned anything over a lot of years of programming, it's that when your users absolutely insist on doing something contrary to what your program wants them to do, it's time to sit down and listen.

    5. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We had a simple field on a form to "Supply a Telephone Number". The users didn't, so we used JS to validate they had filled it in."

      So instead of validation server-side you rely on validation client-side?

      "The more you Idiot-Proof a system, the smarter the Idiots become. Not smarter at actually entering the correct data, just smarter at bypassing the protections you put in place."

      Hummm... Why are your users entering such telephone numbers as 1111111? Are you *sure* they do it on mistake? Or might it be that they don't *want* to give their telephone number to you for their own valid reasons and you still didn't add the option "I don't have or don't want to share my telephone number with you"?

      I'm not sure which keyboard end is the idiot one in this case.

    6. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by mvdwege · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A very good example, that. That $20 DSP does nothing but a brute force search on certain sound patterns. This is not in any way similar to how humans process speech.

      I am not in the camp that says humans have a certain ineffable something that computers can never replicate, but using brute force pattern matching is not the way to find out just how human perception works and reimplementing it in a machine. Chess, BTW, is an example of the opposite: even humans do a brute force search down the decision tree. Sometimes they're trained enough to prune the tree quickly, but that is no different from the common algorithms currently in use.

      As Douglas Hofstadter puts it, the most interesting things happen in those 100ms between seeing a picture of your mother and going 'Mom!', and we're nowhere near understanding that problem space enough to implement it in AI. At least, we weren't a couple of years back. I haven't kept up with current developments though.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    7. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not in any way similar to how humans process speech

      How do humans do it?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    8. Re:In Defense of Artificial Intelligence by Velex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do humans do it?

      It's a fascinatingly complex process. Seriously, read up a bit on Wikipedia and perhaps take a few foreign languages. There are many, many points of failure. I think it's interesting to consider Orwell's argument about language in 1984. When thinking of Orwell, I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to be exposed to as many languages as I have. The more languages I learn, even if only a few words and concepts, the more modes of thinking I open myself up to. A new language to me can sometimes introduce a whole new viewpoint on the world, simply through the specific connotations and denotations. Usually denotations are easy to translate, however connotations can pose such of a problem that sometimes we prefer to just outright borrow a word from another language to express precisely our meaning. Language can evoke all 5 senses.

      Personally, I'm fascinated by language, written and spoken. There are words I learned in Germany that I still use today even though I'm no longer anywhere near fluent (use it or lose it). For example, in English we have a "shortcut," but I can't readily think of the opposite unless I use the German word "Umweg." Another example: as I was looking at art in a story today I came across some Japanese characters (because we know that hanging up symbols you have no idea about is so cool), I noticed that the kanji for woman was one of the radicals in a kanji that was translated as "tranquility." It made me wonder who, thousands of years ago, thought about the concept of tranquility and decided that the lower radical should be the symbol for "woman." I could go on like this. Suffice to say, language is perhaps the single tool we use to define our consciousness has humans.

      I'd further pontificate that unless we were to create an AI for whom language is as prevasive as in the human mind, chasing strong AI will always result in failure.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  2. Virtualization has worked by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not sure why virtualization made it into the potential snake-oil of the future. It's demonstrating real benefits today...practically all of the companies I deal with have virtualized big chunks of their infrastructure.

    I'd vote for cloud computing, previously known as utility computing. It's a lot more work than expected to offload processing outside your organization.

    1. Re:Virtualization has worked by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, even for "just" development, virtualization has been a great gift. With one or two beefy machines, each developer can have an exact mirror of a production environment, and not cause issues on the production side or even for other developers while testing code and such.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Virtualization has worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because virtualization only works for large companies with many, many servers, yet contractors and vendors sell it to any company with a couple of servers. You should virtualize you email ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), web server, ($2,000 by itself, give or take a little), source control ($1,000 by itself, give or take a little, and a couple of others. So you have maybe $10,000 in 5 to 6 servers needed to run a small to mid-size company and spend tens of thousands to put them on one super-server running a complex setup of virtualized servers...oh no, the motherboard died and the entire biz is offline.

      Virtualization has it's place, but only at the larger companies.

    3. Re:Virtualization has worked by VoidEngineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having been involved in a business start-up for a year or so now, I'd have to disagree. Virtualization is indispensible for QA testing. Being able to run a virtual network on a personal PC lets me design, debug, and do proof-of-concepts without requiring the investment in actual equipment. Virtualization isn't just about hardware consolidation: it's also about application portability. Small companies have just as much need for QA testing, hardware recycling, and application portability as the large ones.

    4. Re:Virtualization has worked by publiclurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about using VMWare to make sure you are not doing something decidedly stupid. I have VMWare images of every platform our software supports. I can easily verify that everything works as advertised without running all over the place snagging time on different machines. And if I encounter an issue on a particular setup, I can save a snapshot for later or restore the machine to it's pre-install state and try again.

  3. There is just one Myth. by cybergrue · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It arises when the salesman tell the clueless management that "This product will solve all your problems!"

    Bonus points if the salesman admits that he doesn't need to know your problems before selling it to you.

  4. Microsoft silverlight by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That went over real well once they saw user visits drop by almost half...

  5. Re:My Meta-assessment by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a pattern here. Many of the hyped technologies eventually find a nice little niche. It's good to experiment with new things to find out where they might fit in or teach us new options. The problem comes when they are touted as a general solution to most IT ills. Treat them like the religious dudes who knock on your door: go ahead and talk to them for a while on the porch, but don't let them into the house.
         

  6. It's always the hype problem. by loftwyr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the technologies in the article were overhyped but almost all have had real value in the marketplace.

    For example, AI works and is a very strong technology, but only the SF authors and idiots expect their computer to have a conversation with them. Expert systems (a better name) or technologies that are part of them are in place in thousands of back-office systems.

    But, if you're looking for HAL, you have another 2001 years to wait. Nobody seriously is working toward that, except as a dream goal. Everybody wants a better prediction model for the stock market first.

  7. Those aren't all by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We used to play buzzword bingo when vendors would come in for a show. Some of my personal favorites:

    IT Best Practices - Has anyone seen my big book of best practices? I seem to have misplaced it. But that never stopped vendors from pretending there was an IT bible out there that spelled out the procedures for running an IT shop. And always it was their product at the core of IT best practices.

    Agile Computing - I never did figure that one out. This is your PC, this is your PC in spin class.

    Lean IT - Cut half your staff and spend 3x what you were paying them to pay us for doing the exact same thing only with worse service.

    Web 2.0 - Javascript by any other name is still var rose.

    SOA - What a gold mine that one was. Calling it "web services" didn't command a very high premium. But tack on a great acronym like SOA and you can charge lots more!

    All those are just ways for vendors and contractors to make management feel stupid and out of touch. Many management teams don't need any help in that arena, most of them are already out of touch before the vendor walks in. Exactly why they're not running back to their internal IT people to inquire why installing Siebel is a really BAD idea. You can't fix bad business practices with technology. Fix your business practices first, then find the solution that best fits what you're already doing.

    And whoever has my IT Best Practices book, please bring it back. Thanks.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  8. Why Artificial Intelligence may never exist by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most obvious counterexample to the "AI" nonsense is to consider that, back around 1800 or any time earlier, it was obvious to anyone that the ability to count and do arithmetic was a sign of intelligence. Not even smart animals like dogs or monkeys could add or subtract; only we smart humans could do that. Then those engineer types invented the adding machine. Were people amazed by the advent of intelligent machines? No; they simply reclassified adding and subtracting as "mechanical" actions that required no intelligence at all.

    Fast forward to the computer age, and you see the same process over and over. As soon as something becomes routinely doable by a computer, it is no longer considered a sign of intelligence; it's a mere mechanical activity. Back in the 1960s, when the widely-used programming languages were Fortran and Cobol, the AI researchers were developing languages like LISP that could actually process free-form, variable-length lists. This promised to be the start of truly intelligent computers. By the early 1970s, however, list processing was taught in low-level programming courses and had become a routine part of the software developers toolkits. So it was just a "software engineering" tool, a mechanical activity that didn't require any machine intelligence.

    Meanwhile, the AI researchers were developing more sophisticated "intelligent" data structures, such as tables that could associate arbitrary strings with each other. Did these lead to development of intelligent software? Well, now some of our common programming languages (perl, prolog, etc.) include such tables as basic data types, and the programmers use them routinely. But nobody considers the resulting software "intelligent"; it's merely more complex computer software, but basically still just as mechanical and unintelligent as the first adding machines.

    So my prediction is that we'll never have Artificial Intelligence. Every new advance in that direction will always be reclassified from "intelligent" to "merely mechanical". When we have computer software composing best-selling music and writing best-selling novels or creating entire computer-generated movies from scratch, it will be obvious that such things are merely mechanical activities, requiring no actual intelligence.

    Whether there will still be things that humans are intelligent enough to do, I can't predict.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  9. AI already succeeded by ghostlibrary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AI already has successes. But, as an AI researcher friend of mine points out, once they succeed it's no longer 'AI'. Things like packet routing, used to be AI. Path-finding, as in games, or route-finding, as with GPS: solved. So yes, AI will never arrive, because AI is always 'other than the AI we already have.'

    --
    A.
  10. Re:What? CASE was a success! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not CASE. CASE was about translating requirements into code without human involvement. Your examples are all about abstraction and APIs.