Are the articles at ieee.org usually technically competent?
To see one of their articles with the common press confusion of mixing different definitions and interpretations of AI (correct or incorrect) doesn’t help build confidence.
For example, what was used to play Jeopardy vs. approaches being taken to improve cancer treatment, are just so different, it seems almost disingenuous to throw it all haphazardly into one conceptual bucket.
The article does IBM a disservice in some ways. They come off looking bad overall but some of the failed projects mentioned like MD Anderson, failed for reasons beyond any control they had, other than recognizing some obvious red flags earlier and detaching their name and participation from it.
On the other hand I believe the article lets them offf the hook to easily when they bring out the old trope they’ve been using for years, which is encapsulated here:
“IBM Watson has great AI” [one engineer said] “It’s like having great shoes, but not knowing how to walk—they have to figure out how to use it.”
It doesn’t make sense to say, xyz is great we just have to figure out how to use it, as a stand alone argument. It’s nonsensical unless you mention something about the seeming implied untapped potential, specific innovations, novel approach, or whatever makes it great.
I’m not familiar with all their IP so maybe there are some great things, you just don’t get to claim that and get off the hook so many times in the press without providing at least some detail or reference point.