100% correct. Had IBM marketed Watson for what it actually is - an enterprise version of Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant (which admittedly didn't even exist at the time) - they'd be in a completely different spot. Instead we got the Bob Dylan commercials (which under the covers was just speech to text, a hardcoded dialog tree, and text to speech) and all the "Watson is curing cancer" nonsense (which under the covers was just a rules engine sitting on top of a search engine intended to provide customized treatment plans). The actual technology works, but it's an NLP platform for building chatbots and search engines (think intent classifier, relevancy ranker, named entity/semantic relationship/sentiment annotators) not the AGI that it was marketed as.
When you realize how much positioning is required for large scale sales, you can start to understand why the same company might not have the feedback loops in place to build a product.
- if you're a generally competent, learned person
- and the new product feels like a giant leap from anything that exists already
- it's likely not all it claims to be.
If anyone is promising a 20% or greater improvement over the current leaders, I immediately file it away as a scam until I see extraordinary proof.
Other than some very immature industries, even 20% leaps don't happen without earth shattering once-in-a-generation breakthroughs.
Some call me a pessimist, and occasionally I'm unfairly dismissive of new technologies. But for every one I get wrong, I get 99 others correct.
Mature and/or competitive.
20%+ without a breakthrough can absolutely happen in niche industries that have historically lacked competition.
What I think made people miss it is no one wanted to refactor their code to run efficiently on GPUs. It wasn't that hard to do so in a lot of cases but it was work.
And all this set the stage for deep learning. It was the opening act if you will...
CUDA offered a way to access a limited set of operations on special-purpose hardware with a rewrite of critical sections. A pretty far cry from 'boosting legacy code.'
Ha, this is just silly. Ok, so what percent were IBM promising? How do you ever reduce anything complicated into a percent change.
Sell consulting deployments that hope to fund development of promised features of the tech.
Consulting is a bit like used car selling. If you're not playing close to the line, then someone else is.
Which, okay. Is what it is. But every customer should be aware this is what IBM et al.'s business model is, unless you're simply buying bodies.
Maybe I'm just naive, but I really think that strand still exists in IBM's corporate DNA. They still see this as solvable given sufficient time and effort.