Slashdot Mirror
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.
after they replaced the HR system, no one could figure out how.
Judging from the other comments, IBM's AI system has improved human vision to a perfect 20-20 hindsight.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Watson beat people at Jeopardy because it always got to answer first, because its button-pressing finger was faster than a human's button-pressing response. A fairer assessment of Watson's Jeopardy-playing abilities vs humans would have Watson respond with the same button-mashing-delay profile as its competitors. Beyond that, the relevant question is not whether Watson can beat humans at Jeopardy, or mash a button faster than a human, but whether it can analyze data better than a human to detect cancer (or solve whatever medical problem). And for the most part, it doesn't matter whether the answer comes back in 10 ms, 300 ms, or a a minute, or an hour. Like with any other tool, the question is whether it can help get the job done better for a reasonable price.
While I agree with you that the current artificial ignorance (A.I.) (*) that tries to pass for Artificial Intelligence is a joke -- nothing more then a glorified table lookup -- you're jumping the gun to say "no: intelligent computers will never happen". i.e. a.i. = Actual Intelligence.
THE fundamental problem is that Scientists don't know what the fuck consciousness is. Without a way to measure it you can't copy it (or create it.)
Let's pretend it is 100 years in the future, and we have ways to:
* Upload
* Download
consciousness. With the ability to "clone" consciousness we _actually_ would have a way to have an intelligent computer. But yeah, until we get to THAT point, we're (probably) barking up the wrong tree with "just throw hardware at it."
Second, you are ignoring bio-computing. If tomorrow's computers switched from using electricity to using chemistry, much the way a physical body does, then again, intelligent computers is within the realm of possibility.
The million dollar question is: How do we get there? I'm not aware of anyone knowing. If they do know, they sure as hell aren't saying -- and I can't blame them. Think of the implications: If we could clone human consciousness effectively death would be wiped out which I'm sure there are enough bad sci-fi writers out there who have discussed this before.
Your lament about the sorry state of software reminds me of that old Murphy's Computer Law joke:
Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
(*) Yes, A.I = artificial ignorance was intentional.
Maybe because finding patterns without actually understanding anything is not really "intelligence". The AI hype is slowly dying and even non-IT/non-science-related people finally have finally come to a realization that ... not understand how these trained networks operate and that turns them into a black box you cannot really trust and which is bound to give absolutely wrong results.
1) AI is not a magical pill that can solve all the problems in the world
2) There isn't too much "intelligence" in AI
3) Coding real intelligence is a lot harder than using throwing reinforced convolutional neural networks at everything
4) We do
It's not like we understand how the human brain operates but we have certain reasons to believe it's mostly rational, intelligent and infallible (with exceptions, of course) since it has got us here - the age of technology and an improved quality and increased length of life which no other animal has been able to achieve.
I'm not against reinventing the biological intelligence that the human beings possess but it surely looks like we haven't come close to it.