Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Machine Learning Ate Microsoft

Posted by samzenpus on from the doing-it-smarter dept.

snydeq writes Yesterday's announcement of Azure Machine Learning offers the latest sign of Microsoft's deep machine learning expertise — now available to developers everywhere, InfoWorld reports. "Machine learning has infiltrated Microsoft products from Bing to Office to Windows 8 to Xbox games. Its flashiest vehicle may be the futuristic Skype Translator, which handles two-way voice conversations in different languages. Now, with machine learning available on the Azure cloud, developers can build learning capabilities into their own applications: recommendations, sentiment analysis, fraud detection, fault prediction, and more. The idea of the new Azure offering is to democratize machine learning, so you no longer need to hire someone with a doctorate to use a machine learning algorithm."

7 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. How Bing learns by lu-darp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So how did MS apply "machine learning" to make Bing not suck? By holding an internal competition to see who's algorithm processed "user improvement program" data best. So that essentially meant training it up to match Google search results (and presumably, which links "consenting" users clicked).

    (OK, I'm sure they've come a long way since then on their own merits, but we can't let them live that one down ;-)

    1. Re:How Bing learns by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Although the above was just a joke, I actually clicked on the link after I submitted it, and it turns out to be an old page from 2009. It provides the follows searches which it says "just don't work" on Bing (in 2009):

      “Was Einstein married?”
      “What did Benjamin Franklin invent?”
      “What is the top selling album of all time?”

      I did a quick comparison of those three between Bing and Google, and the results seemed pretty comparable. In fact, I thought Bing did a little better on the first two, and Google did a little better on the last one - primarily because it provided a nice blurb from Wikipedia in the results.

      So, although I think we can all agree that Bing was "horrible" in the past, it's come a long ways. It's not like in the old days when Google was clearly the best - I think you could use any of the major search engines now and do just fine.

    2. Re:How Bing learns by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      DuckDuckGo uses Bing, but it does some nice enhancements, like putting Wikipedia results first very often. If you want to live a Google-free life, and don't want to give your search history to MS either - ddg.gg.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Youpie I just wasted 5 years of my life.... by ProzakLord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Baing about to finish a PhD this is worrying thinking that the deep understanding of a technique can be replaced by a well programmed API. But of course managerial people, a.k.a decission makers will eat that raw. If you want my data just ask for it.

  3. Re:Correlation and causation again by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds like Reason..

    Reason allows users to specify in advance the decision they want it to reach, and only then to input all the facts. The program's task was to construct a plausible series of logical-sounding steps to connect the premises with the conclusion. The only copy was sold to the US Government for an undisclosed fee.

  4. Re:Call me paraniod, but ... by Lennie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let me be clear: what applies to Azure as a foreigner applies also to Amazon/AWS, Google, Rackspace, IBM/SoftLayer, CenturyLink, DigitalOcean, Vultr, Linode, PeerOne or any other US-based company (even if they run the service in Europe for example).

    But I noticed there are others in the world, for example on the OpenStack Marketplace:
    http://www.openstack.org/marke...

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  5. Re:Does Bing suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To me it seems more like Google has got _worse_ than Bing has got better.

    Too often when I put in very specific keywords that very relevant to a particular article Google doesn't show the most likely hit, it instead tries to suggest what Joe Six pack might want and that I actually made typos to the keywords or typed those keywords by mistake and ignores some of them.

    Then when I turn on Verbatim on Google, it gives me a list of all the pages that contain those keywords in a useless order (which could include link spam sites, or similar crap at the first page). Doesn't seem to be ordered by page rank or importance.

    Bing doesn't do better either. So it seems more like Google has got worse than Bing has got better.

    When I finally find the article (by trying other words or narrowing down by site), yes my original keywords are there.