Slashdot Mirror


40% of 'AI Startups' in Europe Don't Actually Use AI, Claims Report (forbes.com)

Two-fifths of Europe's AI startups do not use any AI programs in their products, according to a report that highlights the hype around the technology. From a report: Out of 2,830 startups in Europe who were classified as being AI companies, only 1,580 accurately fit that description according to the eye-opening stat on page 99 of a new report from MMC, a London-based venture capital firm. The label, which refers to computer systems that can perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, was simply wrong.

"We looked at every company, their materials, their product, the website, and product documents," says David Kelnar, head of research for MMC which has $400 million under management and a portfolio of 34 companies. "In 40% of cases we could find no mention of evidence of AI." In such cases, he added, "companies that people assume and think are AI companies are probably not."

112 comments

  1. Coincidentally by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No one does, at best people are using machine learning.

    1. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reminds me of a screenshot I saw some days ago:
      "If it's written in Python, it's probably machine learning. If it's written in Powerpoint, it's probably AI"

    2. Re:Coincidentally by clevelandguru · · Score: 3, Informative

      AI is a broader term that includes Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, Expert System... So even if a company uses Machine Learning, they are using an AI component.

    3. Re:Coincidentally by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I thought when reading the headline. AGI still seems to be a long way off...

    4. Re:Coincidentally by sfcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reminds me of a screenshot I saw some days ago: "If it's written in Python, it's probably machine learning. If it's written in Powerpoint, it's probably AI"

      That quote is wrong...it should be, if its in Python, its applied math but is being called machine learning, if its in LISP or Prolog then its probably AI. Actually, no self-respecting CS person uses Python. Python is used by academics from other fields like Physics who then use their field's variant of mathematical analysis and call it AI. Then they turn down a person with an actual CS degree and experience in ML for a data science job because they don't understand some weird jargon that was invented two weeks ago. This is no surprise to me...the entire "Big Data" thing has been a fraud since the beginning and since the bosses have no idea what AI is, they can't tell when they are being conned. And apparently neither can the investors.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    5. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent summary. Yes a CS degree would put your level of expertise far above Python, machine learning, anything a startup calls AI unless a computer scientist runs it, etc. a quick test: if you don't know more than one way to sort a list then you probably have no business talking about machine learning or AI.

    6. Re:Coincidentally by Luthair · · Score: 1, Troll

      If someone says they have a rabbit, and they pull out a rabbit's foot would you agree with them?

    7. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to troll non-CS scientists here? Good troll effort points for you if you are.

    8. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Pattern recognition is also a very important part of AI. I use python based pattern recognition to maximize exposure vs clicks in my 10+ AI startups that I own.
      --
      "Is Wreck Ralph The Next Casey Neistat for Young Wannabe YouTubers?" #SomethingPositive & Hard work ! :)

    9. Re: Coincidentally by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Would it put you in a position where you can write something that can be sold as AI though?

      Python gets the work done. I'd like to see a household appliance running on Prolog though.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    10. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is trolling from the promised land.

    11. Re:Coincidentally by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AI used to mean "machines that think like a human" (or at least close enough to be in Searle's Chinese room). After a while, AI turned out to be harder than everyone thought, so some people redefined AI to mean, "stuff we found while looking for AI." The original meaning of AI got renamed to "strong AI." That's in academia.

      In the outside world, the press and the media and popular culture, AI retains its original meaning: "machines that think like a human." Which is confusing for a lot of people when they hear scientists talking about AI, because strong AI has not been invented, and we have no idea even how to do it. We're missing some fairly important pieces.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cat feeding machine has been running on prolog since 1992, when I was studying it. Has fed several cat generations already.

    13. Re:Coincidentally by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That may very well be true, but there doesn't seem to have been a requirement for the "G".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Coincidentally by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

      At the same time, AI has come to be used in the tech press and mainstream press to mean "machine learning and related statistical techniques". Obviously this hurts the brains of many of us who still understand AI to mean "strong AI" or the newer moniker, "AGI" (artificial general intelligence), but we sort of have to roll with the language on this one.

      Wikipedia insists that machine learning is a subset of AI. OK, sure, I guess that's fine, in that it is one of a series of techniques that can provide reasonable performance in solving certain human-level intelligence tasks.

      When I'm speaking with a technical audience I go with more precise terminology - deep learning, reinforcement learning, unsupervised learning and try to avoid the headache, since we all know we are talking about statistical techniques in machine learning and none of it yet comes close to strong AI. Getting the mainstream press to correct their use of the abbreviation AI is about as likely as getting them to correct their use of the word "hacking".

    15. Re:Coincidentally by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      if its in LISP or Prolog then its probably AI.

      What makes Prolog so special? It's a language based on formal logic, and formal logic is only one aspect of intelligence.

    16. Re:Coincidentally by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      AI has come to be used in the tech press and mainstream press to mean "machine learning and related statistical techniques".

      It really doesn't. Reporters mostly don't understand the difference between "machine learning" and "strong AI." They also don't understand the difference between "machine learning" and "statistical techniques."

      Read articles carefully: often the researcher/company will be saying one thing, and the reporter will hear "strong AI." Then we get that followed with "AI is a danger to humanity." In its current form it's not, and it will take a lot before AI is anywhere near capable of overtaking humanity. And sometimes the researchers encourage the confusion.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "startup" is an academic name for "bullshit".
      You own tons of it.

    18. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patter recognition in humans is very valuable skill that makes them more intelligent than others - especially if it is faster. How pattern recognition is not part of AI?
      Machine Learning is only one of the ways to gather dataset - you could as well gather data with different methods and then apply to you AI system - it changes nothing.
      Why this stupid and stubborn assumption that this is not AI? And no - human AI is not the only one with intelligence. Animals have it too. It is a very loose term nowadays and humans are not the only ones that have it. Besides, primitive insectlike AI is still AI - as a rule of tumb if it has a brain it will have algorithms that will support its existence - and I am not the one who will claim that comments are posted there by someone without brains.

    19. Re: Coincidentally by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How pattern recognition is not part of AI?

      It's most likely part of the solution to "how the human brain works," but it is far from the entire solution of general AI. That is why.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job. Teach your cats dedication. Let's have cats inherit the earth once stupid humans suffocate.

    21. Re:Coincidentally by eepok · · Score: 2

      Yes and no. It is USED as a broader term to mean all those things. However, it is deceptive to do so. Marketing departments try to distort existing vocabulary all the time with the intent of attaching current understanding to their very different product.

      Artificial Intelligence is one example. The use of the term "ridesharing" by app-based taxi services is another. "Bikeshare and carshare" are short-term bike and car rentals. In fact, the entire "sharing" economy is actually just "short term rentals" or "services provided by an independent contractor".

      It's all there to make you think it's something grander, innovative, and more meaningful than it actually is.

    22. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because some marketing asshats thought they were being clever by rebranding ML as AI, and AI as AGI.

      Hooray, AI is here!

    23. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to your logic: I use math. Math is an AI component. Therefore I am using AI.

    24. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a rabbit must be alive and whole.

    25. Re: Coincidentally by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

      I didn't say that it does mean that. I said it has come to be used that way. I support some prescriptiveness in language, but I am a realist about technical terms getting broad to the point of meaninglessness when they enter the mainstream. Fighting this is a frustrating and likely pointless endeavour (see: hacker).

      Your theory seems to be that writers at TechCrunch think when they say a startup is using "AI" to improve recruiting or the sales process or even to process large volumes of textual data that they really think they mean artificial general intelligence. I believe they are using a vague catchphrase or abbreviation that gets clicks, and that they know that's not "real AI" but don't care.

      Maybe the journalists at the New York Times or Washington Post are a more credulous lot and they really do think that is what it means, but I doubt it. They are all just capitalizing on confusion between Hollywood AI and machine learning for clickbait. That is what gets them paid.

    26. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Academa never made anything useful and never will, so academics' opinions are worthless.

    27. Re: Coincidentally by Luthair · · Score: 2

      the point
      your head

    28. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, if you believe that you have zero knowledge of AI and it's history.

      The idea that we could go from no AI, to human like AI in an instant exists as nothing other than fantasy in the minds of people who don't understand the field. It's like arguing that maths and physics have failed because they didn't go from the invention of addition to a grand unified theory of the universe in a few short years. Only the biggest retard would ever think that realistic for maths and physics, and similarly only the biggest retards think that for AI; if you think that then that should provide a hint about your intellectual failure as a human being.

      Precisely because no one for one minute expected we could achieve human like AI immediately, many early AI experiments were focused around simpler intelligences, such as those of insects for exactly this reason. Those successful attempts at mimicking simpler intelligences led to everything from network routing algorithms based off the behaviour of ants, through to spell checking, and Google search.

      AI is a young field in the grand scheme of things, and a simple measure of the fact it's a successful field is the fact that computers are able to replace more, and more, and more, and more of what humans do as every day goes by. Your misguided and obviously dumb fantasy that it's not AI unless we immediately jump from the starting point to the end game is one of the most mindless, hopelessly wrong and stupid things I've seen posted on Slashdot in a long time. Again, this is exactly like saying it's not physics unless we've got a grand unified theory, in your words it's just stuff we found on the way to physics.

      Don't talk about things you don't understand, all you do is prove your stupidity.

    29. Re:Coincidentally by skaralic · · Score: 1

      I just pronounce it "AL". I think it's more meaningful that way.

    30. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, AI is a term that is broadly misapplied to include ML, NLP, ES, etc. Currently, there is no AI.

    31. Re: Coincidentally by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Do you doubt it or not? You don't need to doubt, you can actually look at the articles and see how it's being used. Here's an example from tech crunch, that has diagnosed a computer as a psychopath. Whether the author believed it or not, that is how the term AI was used: https://techcrunch.com/2018/06...

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A.I. is a term that was made up by flower arrangers sorry marketing people to sell the cloud.

    33. Re:Coincidentally by athmanb · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's also because AI as a concept keeps moving its goalposts as we reach some of them.

      If you'd ask a guy from the 80s whether a device qualifies as AI that allows you speak the name of a destination, then leads you there on the optimal way using voice output, he'd say "of course yes". Nowadays we'd just say "durr no that's just Google Maps".

    34. Re: Coincidentally by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      You just made that up, you are imagining things. If you actually looked to see what people in the 80s were thinking about AI you almost certainly would have come across Searle's Chinese Room paper. Next time do a Google search.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a quick test: if you don't know more than one way to sort a list then you probably have no business talking about machine learning or AI.

      In my quick test if you, in 2019, are still writing list-sorts, you have no business talking about start-ups.

      With a startup, pythons sort and sorted will do very nicely for most lists, and it kind of explains why all but the most funded tend to stay away from staffing with CS folks.

    36. Re:Coincidentally by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The whole term "AI" is a marketing lie. It has gotten to prevalent that researchers are now using "AGI" (Artificial General Intelligence), which essentially means the same thing but has not yet gotten corrupted by the marketing scum.

      Incidentally, there is no "learning" in machine learning either. It is just calculating parameters of statistical classifiers from data-sets. Calling that "learning" is about as wrong and dishonest as calling statistical classificators "AI". "Learning" and "AI" both imply insight. Insight is something machines cannot do and may well never be able to do.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    37. Re: Coincidentally by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Since I had to google it and I still have the tab open:

      The Chinese Room Argument

    38. Re:Coincidentally by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Paul Simon thanks you!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    39. Re: Coincidentally by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      In other news, 70% of blockchain startups don't use blockchain, except as a means of getting VC funding. Which is what the AI startups are doing too. And if you really want a way of getting VCs to bukkake money at you, do an AI blockchain startup.

    40. Re:Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're funny.

      There is no AI. There is some pretty amazing machine learning.

      As for all the language snobbery and whatever the rest of that was, just relax. It's really not that bad and you'll be better off and happier if you take a more well rounded and calm look at everything.

    41. Re: Coincidentally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you really want a way of getting VCs to bukkake money at you, do an AI blockchain startup.

      sshhhh..don't tell people my business plan!

    42. Re: Coincidentally by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Still, you need *something* to show the VCs to attract them. Preferably something more interactive than PowerPoint presentation. So... Python for the rescue!

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    43. Re: Coincidentally by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Well, at least some of those machines are intelligent enough to know ML is AI. That makes them smarter than you.

  2. and the other 60% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    also donâ(TM)t use AI

    1. Re: and the other 60% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI has no meaning. Nor does machine learning. So you can use them to mean whatever you want although whoever heard you say AI will then decide it means whatever they want it to mean. Hilarity ensues unless you invest in AI startups

    2. Re:and the other 60% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I worked in one of the so-called AI startups.

      AI was a python script with regex and few conditions coded by 3 junior developers. It didn't work at all, but was still enough to get another round of funding by VC. At that moment i realized our business model was not based on the product, but rather milking the VC.

    3. Re:and the other 60% by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They were doing god's work then.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Only 40%? by shatteredsilicon · · Score: 2

    Simple rule of thumb to distinguish machine learning from AI: - If it's written in Python, it's probably ML. - If it's written in Powerpoint, it's probably AI.

    1. Re:Only 40%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      djvu dude. nobody in ai seriously does powerpoint presentations.

  4. No kidding by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Claiming that you are an "AI" company is just marketing buzz for most. Last year they would have been "blockchain startups", in 1999 they would have been "internet companies", and in 1960 they would have been somehow worked the word "rocket" into the name. It's been this way forever.

    1. Re:No kidding by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:No kidding by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And now we sit back and wait for "AI-powered" crawlers to automatically register this stupid-as-fuck domain name.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, but you know how it is.
      Investor have read about it in some magazine so if you don't claim that your new line of teacup holders uses AI or blockchains or whatever the new buzzword is they will think that you are out of touch with the market and withhold the funding.
      Some of them are a bit behind and wants you to do the IoT thingy.

    4. Re:No kidding by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      This year at CES, down in the Eureka area, was a guy sitting in a booth. The curtain behind him had just 3 words, in relatively (1" high) small print..

      blockchain
      ai
      crypto

      His booth was actually quite busy. I take this as proof that, if you reach a critical mass of buzzwords, it does not matter WHAT you do, you WILL get funded as Homer Simpson found out...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:No kidding by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      It is not the companies claiming to be AI companies. It is analysts (other analysts) to claim companies do AI without evidence (claim by this analysts). So in short: Analysts claim other analysts do not work properly. What else is new?

    6. Re:No kidding by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I don't even blame the companies. I blame the politicos and their moronic desire to constantly attempt to interfere in the market place. Cleveland for example has "block chain incubator."

      So if you are starting a business that does anything with a computer at all; you want to get free money and paraded in from of potential investors well you better find away to include block chain somehow even if that isn't the right tool for the job and if you can;'t manage that you need to work into the marketing literature how using blockchain as part of your product is an aspirational goal that you will realize "anytime now" because that is how you get the free handouts. Heck I would do the same!
       

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:No kidding by BarneyGuarder · · Score: 1

      eMachineLearningCloudBlockchainAI-as-a-service.com: We're democratizing social networks for the internet. Our current valuation is $4.5 Billion and our server closet is where the waiters keep their coats.

    8. Re:No kidding by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Next thing you are going to tell me is that my yoga pants aren't smart.....

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  5. 40%? It's 100%. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because there is no such thing as "AI".

    1. Re:40%? It's 100%. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This...

      Media hype and the rush to "innovate" have destroyed yet another well defined technical term. What is now considered AI or machine learning is at best fuzzy logic or a set of truth tables. 1960s era Autopilot or radar would be considered AI using today's definition.

      Autonomous driving has very rigid operating parameters for safe operation. Once operating parameters are outside "safe" operation it requires manual operator input or a preset failure mode is implemented. True AI this is not.

    2. Re:40%? It's 100%. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree with this. It's all machine learning. There is no true "AI". We're not there yet. Machine learning is a thing for certain, but AI would indicate some notion of sentience. "Robots" and similar devices, even "smart" algorithms/programs don't have this ability yet. A machine is just a filter. All programs are essentially filters. Machine learning is simply a way for "things", programs, etc., to do something if something occurs. Basically if, else, elseif, regex , etc. In other words, all conditional. No currently-labeled "AI" can "learn" or do individual tasks without a pre-set series of conditions that need to be met. AI cannot yet develop a new language on its own, for example, or decide to build something on its own. Not there yet. Future computing may allow for this, but with current software and hardware limitations, we are simply not there. Everything is conditional. Smart cars, for all their bells and whistles are simply filters. Object coming? Warn! Brake!

      AI? Hardly. It's marketing drone speak to get investors to funnel in the coin to hopefully do something interesting, which usually never happens.

    3. Re:40%? It's 100%. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      but AI would indicate some notion of sentience

      No, it wouldn't. It has never been the requirement.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:40%? It's 100%. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Intelligence" is the ability to conduct rational thought, independently of pre-set conditional parameters. Otherwise, it's just marketing speak. AI is a buzzword these days. For all its intentions, AI is simply machine learning at this point in time.

    5. Re:40%? It's 100%. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The marketing scum cannot help themselves. They will corrupt any and all meaning of language if it means they potentially get one more sale.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. New investment opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've probably heard of this startup, but then again, who hasn't? It's the Blockchain Artificial Intelligence Social Cloud Micropayment DevOps Framework Information Superhighway Content Management Company.

    Who wants to invest in this promising startup with me?

    1. Re:New investment opportunity by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Nobody. The acronym sucks.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:New investment opportunity by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      I'd love to invest in BAISCMDFISCMC! If they will accept East German marks that is.

  7. Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes, correct, but besides the point.

    The core problem is, that "AI" is generally associated with, you know, actual artificial intelligence.

    But in reality, the "neural nets" that most "AI" companies use, are nothing more than weighted biasing of input data, simplified down to mere matrix manipulation. Wich is almost, bot not quite, entirely unlike real neural nets, which use spiking signal patterns, various different activation curves, have broadcastig abilities and many other features. Which is why these artificial ones require ten times the "neurons" even for simple pattern matching tasks, and outright fail at displaying anything that could be called intelligence. Nor are they usually used for such high purposes.

    The whole thing is deliberately misleading. Because there is a buck to be made. Without actual honest work in return. And the thugs and gamblers just love that.

    1. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not familiar with "neural nets", but the term "neural networks" generally refers to ANNs, not networks of biological neurons. It is correct that ANNs have little in common with biological brains. But then we don't understand biological neurons well, and even if we did, we couldn't program them, so what's your point? AI has given up emulating human brains decades ago. This fundamental misunderstanding is probably why you think AI is "deliberately misleading". I think you're misleading yourself. Your argument is like saying that cars can never replace horses for transport because they don't eat hay.

    2. Re: Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weighted biasing is doing a great job - it is effective and if it can outperform human by guessing right - it is AI, but based on probability. Most humans are doing worse at guessing things wrong every day. So what is your problem with the term AI? People don't even grasp that they are biological robots.

    3. Re: Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If humans evolved in complete symbiotic coupling with a horse - then cars would indeed be a totally wrong representation.
      Your example is just false. We are talking about replacing a feature that defines a human being on a fundamental level.

    4. Re: Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't know "neural nets" but you know "neural networks"? Do you also not know a cock up your ass but you know an erect penis in there?

    5. Re: Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We don't have a cogent definition of I, so AI is even harder to define, apart from the A part. Most of the time, though, people just want stuff that gets the job done cheaply, whatever it might be called, but verifying it is doing the job you think it is doing is not always easy.

  8. It's probably even worse than that by locketine · · Score: 1

    I suspect MMC, a venture capital firm, doesn't have the expertise or resources to inspect the code, so how would they know that there's something like AI or ML powering the product? The article makes it sound like they simply looked at the company's marketing materials and maybe got a product demo from the marketing team.

    --
    Think globally but act within local variable scope.
  9. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe has startups?

  10. Analysts claim analysts are wrong by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Analysts classify start ups to be AI companies while the analysts of the study claim that analysis is wrong, as they could not find evidence of AI used by the companies. The latter analysts also do not provide evidence on what data they come to this conclusion. All analysts do not provide any definition what this AI is and what they counts as AI in their respective studies.

    They do not analyze anything properly, they guess, use smoke and cloaks to confuse the audience.

  11. That's Europe. Fake News Countries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come to the U.S. of A. to bask in R.E.A.L. A.l. Or my name is not Earl J. Pussey.

  12. AI has now taken the place of blockchains by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    for the sweet VC dollars.

  13. WUT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am from California, USA and I consider myself pretty honest and modest.
    --
    "Is Wreck Ralph The Next Casey Neistat for Young Wannabe YouTubers?" #SomethingPositive & Hard work ! :)

  14. Re:A case of cultural difference more likely by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article is about analysts which claim other analysts made a wrong assessment based on data both do not have.

    So it is all bullshit. BTW they do not define what they mean by AI.

  15. What is AI? by zmooc · · Score: 2

    This all comes down to the definition of AI; these days, people tend to think the term is synonymous with machine learning, but it isn't nor has it ever been; AI is just about a system that's somehow "artificially intelligent". Rule-based systems and statistical analysis can be AI just as well. Us computer people that understand that simply following some rules is not "intelligent" may think otherwise, but the vast majority of humanity considers these things "intelligent". Any automated system that appears "intelligent" to its users or buyers is AI. By definition.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
    1. Re:What is AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      var = 100
      if var == 200:
            print "1 - Not AI"
            print var
      elif var == 150:
            print "2 - Not AI Either"
            print var
      elif var == 100:
            print "I am AI. I am very smart. Give me money."
            print var
      else:
            print "Fuck you. Give me money anyway because I said the letters A and I"

    2. Re:What is AI? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      No. Just because the marketing people have led non-technical folks to believe that rule-based systems are "intelligent"...doesn't make it so.

    3. Re:What is AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the most compelling rebuttal to the "AI means a machine that thinks" I've heard.

      The distinction seems to be whether the machine is conscious. A conscious, thinking machine is what AI means to me. I don't think it will or can come directly by design but as a side effect of technological advancement. Could be 100 years from now, could be tomorrow.

      I could see where an ML system that could reprogram itself on the fly could be "Strong AI"

      I don't belive in god I do belive life is an emergent property that can manifest anywhere in the right conditions.

  16. Oh, they're using is allright.,. by BarneyGuarder · · Score: 1

    AI right there in the name, so it is doing its job! What else is there? Also, 40% sounds low. Maybe it is higher over here in the states.

  17. This Is A Shocker by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

    You're telling me there are companies capitalizing on our obsession with a current buzzword?

    1. Re:This Is A Shocker by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      let me check my Big Data for answer...

    2. Re: This Is A Shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...blockchain says no.

    3. Re: This Is A Shocker by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I'll need some Data Scientists with Data Analytics to check their Dashboards

  18. AAI by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Artificial Artificial Intelligence. It's the new genuine simulated leather.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:AAI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Artificial Artificial Intelligence. It's the new genuine simulated leather.

      It's "fine Corinthian leather"

  19. BLOCKCHAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you want to use AI in your product when you can use "BLOCKCHAIN" in your product name?

  20. Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "companies that people assume and think are AI companies are probably not."

    Except TFA says that 60% are... so they probably are.

  21. Use it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone tried to use that 'Artificial Intelligence' to predict what the next popular buzzword will be? You could make a killing by beating everyone to the punch to next year's stampede.

  22. Fuzzy Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for Fuzzy Logic powered Artificial Intelligence on a Transputer, then we'll be back in 1980.

  23. What does this remioned me of? by 3seas · · Score: 1

    It reminds me of the Website bubble where startup got investors to put money into startups that had no product or service.

  24. AAI Startups? by AdamStarks · · Score: 1

    Artificial AI Startups?

  25. Blockchain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The website "bubble", as you called it, was a very real phenomenon. The world wide web was rapidly spreading across the globe and is an ubiquitous part of our daily lives today.

    The AI buzz reminds me more of the blockchain "gold rush" of 2018. Tons of hype, lots of supposed implementations, but it's all a bunch of bullshit!

    This bubble too will pop.

  26. More proof so-called 'AI' is mostly marketing hype by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    ..and now we see: most of what keeps getting hyped as 'AI' is marketing hype, just like I've been saying. Do you really want to trust your life to half-assed half-baked pieces of software?

  27. You do realise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI also stands for "Actual Idiocy" - of which there appears to be no shortage at all.

  28. Most startups probably don't even use the "I". by mark-t · · Score: 1

    So saying that they don't use the artificial one either isn't news.

    And by the way... although this is just a personal pet peeve here, it's actually written as "A.I.", not "AI". It is an abbreviation, not an acronym.

    1. Re:Most startups probably don't even use the "I". by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Most startups probably don't even use the "I".

      So saying that they don't use the artificial one either isn't news.

      Oh, yes. Recently did a consulting job for an "AI" startup. What we should have told them is "Your idea is shit and anything solid you actually have is 20 years old." They had no clue about the state-of-the-art and were bumbling about incompetently. Surprisingly they had investors.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Most startups probably don't even use the "I". by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And do you also write "N.A.S.A."?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  29. Linear regression by lorinc · · Score: 1

    My personal experience with companies that claim to do AI, is that the vast majority of them claim it's AI as soon as they do a linear regression. Which always makes me wonder what they did before they switched to AI.

  30. Re:A case of cultural difference more likely by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    You win the internet today. About time someone called BS on the entire subject area. Artificial Ignorance, except nope, it's real.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  31. Re:More proof so-called 'AI' is mostly marketing h by jrumney · · Score: 1

    This seems like the opposite to me. If the claim is true, and a full 60% of AI startups are actually doing AI, then it would seem that there is more to it than the usual hype bubble. But probably the authors used an extremely lenient definition of AI, like if tensorflow is linked in somewhere, it is AI.

  32. AI = All Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, using indian callcenter operators as categorizers for training data is a well known habit, as is using Amazon's mechanical turk.

    AI = African Intelligence is also a machine learning industry pejorative as quite a number of firms outsource training data preclassification to african callcenter operators as well. The indians know what they are getting into, but the african operators talk about themselves as if they are uplifting the local african employees into the tech sector in a kind of imperialistic white arrogance, when the africans are just being treated as modern serfs, if that.

  33. 95% of 'Agile' Companies use Waterfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because the project-manager suddenly uses the term 'scrum' instead of 'meeting' doesn't mean you're being agile. Oh wait, there shouldn't be a project manager at all !

  34. Lots of reasons for stuff like this by reanjr · · Score: 1

    My employer has AI initiatives, but we just engaged in some creative explanations to convince zoning board we are an R&D company so we can move into our new office park.

    There are lots of reasons the reporting on these kinds of metrics is fuzzy.