Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

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."

18 of 112 comments (clear)

  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 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."
    4. 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."
    5. 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".

    6. 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."
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

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

      the point
      your head

    10. 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."
    11. 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."
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?!