|
|
|
|
|
|
by karmacondon
4145 days ago
|
|
|
So the gist of what I'm seeing in this thread is, "Watson's API services aren't very good yet, but they will get better as it collects and processes more data". So basically, IBM is charging us to provide it with training data to make Watson useful for practical applications. Makes sense, but I can't help but feel that it would be a smarter move to skip charging entirely for now, or to use drastically reduced pricing tiers that exist only for the purpose of preventing abuse. The idea of releasing a product like this with less than impressive demos is a bit of a risk. It's not going to encourage people to use it if the demos aren't compelling, and the demos won't be compelling until a lot of people are using it. I'd err on the side of optimism here, it'll probably work out for the best, but it will be interesting to see how this goes and provide a good case study. My other thought is that if IBM can't get sufficient training data on their own, what hope do the rest of us have? Performing classification on arbitrary data is a herculean task. People could throw literally anything at this api and will expect to get common sense results, it's nearly impossible and pushing the boundaries of what even cutting edge software can do. But if a company like IBM spends billions of dollars and their demos still end up generating mostly confusion and complaints... This kind of open ended "AI" might be more difficult than even the most conservative experts thought. EDIT: As an after thought, the real value here isn't so much software as it is pooled training data. Facebook has been able to identify human faces in photos for years, speech-to-text and concept modelling have all been around for a long time. What's difficult is getting the labelled data necessary to distinguish between "is this a picture of a person or a picture of a cat?". Watson is great and it seems like IBM has made an investment in acquiring and collecting the data necessary to do that. But their big play here might be to build a consumer friendly enough product that their users contribute the rest of that data for them over the next several years, building an aggregate data set that is worth as much or more than the software itself. Again, will be interesting to see how it plays out. |
|
|
We wanted to get the services into peoples hands early, even though we're still working on them, rather than wait until we had a perfect product. There's a tradeoff here, but we figure that we can improve the services faster and better with public usage and feedback than we could in private isolation.
Since they're free, hopefully people will be able to have some fun playing around with the services, also!