IBM Promised Its AI Platform Watson Would Be a Big Step Forward in Treating Cancer. But After Pouring Billions Into the Project, the Diagnosis is Gloomy. (wsj.com)

Can Watson cure cancer? That's what IBM asked soon after its AI system beat humans at the quiz show "Jeopardy!" in 2011. Watson could read documents quickly and find patterns in data. Could it match patient information with the latest in medical studies to deliver personalized treatment recommendations? "Watson represents a technology breakthrough that can help physicians improve patient outcomes," said Herbert Chase, a professor of biomedical informatics at Columbia University, in a 2012 IBM press release. Six years and billions of dollars later, the diagnosis for Watson is gloomy [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. WSJ: More than a dozen IBM partners and clients have halted or shrunk Watson's oncology-related projects. Watson cancer applications have had limited impact on patients, according to dozens of interviews with medical centers, companies and doctors who have used it, as well as documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. In many cases, the tools didn't add much value. In some cases, Watson wasn't accurate. Watson can be tripped up by a lack of data in rare or recurring cancers, and treatments are evolving faster than Watson's human trainers can update the system. Dr. Chase of Columbia said he withdrew as an adviser after he grew disappointed in IBM's direction for marketing the technology. No published research shows Watson improving patient outcomes. IBM said Watson has important cancer-care benefits, like helping doctors keep up with medical knowledge.

Comments

AI is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

AI is total BS. It is just computer programs running algorithms. There is no intelligence or even learning. And no: intelligent computers will never happen. We have trillions of dollars going into computing and we barely have usable software.

The current approach to AI is a DEAD END.

[Rick Schumann]

I've said it before, I'll keep saying it: until we actually understand how a biological brain produces the phenomena we call 'thinking', we will not be able to create 'machine intelligences' that match or exceed human beings. Period. It's 'magical thinking' to keep hooking up more and more processors and throw more and more data at the same half-assed software and expect it to suddenly be smart and cognitive like a human brain. 'Deep learning algorithms' are just a very small part of the total answer, and that's all they've been obsessively focusing on.

Now, what they should be investing 'billions and billions of dollars' in, is research and development of newer, better instrumentation for observing a living brain in action (and I do NOT mean 'a better fMRI, I mean invent something that's a new and different approach). Only when we can see the total system in action will we even have a chance to understand how it works, the problem being that once it's dead, it's dead, and dissecting it isn't going to show you what you need to see.