
MIT and IBM establish joint AI research lab - ffwang2
http://news.mit.edu/2017/ibm-mit-joint-research-watson-artificial-intelligence-lab-0907
======
blueyes
IBM bought visibility with its ad campaigns, and it's trying to buy
credibility with this sponsorship, but I'll bet you anything that the only
part of IBM that MIT will use is the brand. The tech will be open-source tools
that IBM didn't produce, and it certainly won't be Watson.

~~~
cs702
Yes, "Watson" is _really_ old technology coupled with costly consulting
services. And yes, IBM is _far_ behind Google, Facebook and other Silicon
Valley companies in AI research.

That said, for MIT, which in some ways is trying to catch up with schools like
Toronto and Stanford in AI research, particularly in deep learning, it makes a
lot of sense to take the $240 million from IBM to create a dedicated AI
research center.

I think they have a shot at becoming an important 'center of gravity' for AI
research in the East Coast.

~~~
johnchristopher
But today anyone can ask IBM for some Watson queries. Which AI services can I
buy from Google, Facebook and others ?

~~~
cma
Voice, image, video, text analysis, translation:

[https://cloud.google.com/products/machine-
learning/](https://cloud.google.com/products/machine-learning/)

------
aficionado
This is one of the many desperate moves that we will see from IBM trying to
deliver on the Watson overpromise and all their rocambolesque cognitive
computing. AI is a late project
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-
Month](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month)). So adding more
manpower (or brainpower) to a late software project only makes it later. Only
folks poorly educated on the topic (such as Elon Musk) really believe that
Watson-like AI is around the corner.

~~~
yequalsx
I don't think it's universally true that adding more manpower to a late
software project always makes it later. The Mythical Man Month takeaway is
that things don't scale up linearly when adding manpower but they clearly can
and often times do scale up.

Imagine one person given the task of rewriting the Windows operating system in
Java. This one person team won't benefit from more programmers? Of course the
project will be completed faster, in this case, with more manpower.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't think it's universally true that adding more manpower to a late
> software project always makes it later.

It _always_ results in a period of reduced progress due to drag on the
existing staff to onboard the new staff; and the bigger the scale up, the
_longer_ that period where you are behind where you would have been without it
is. And the more you scale up, the more you need to reorganize and build new
coordination infrastructure to make use of new resources even once they are up
to speed technically, which also takes time to set up _and_ time to acclimate
staff to the new organization and teams, which creates its own drag.

In realistic scenarios, this pretty invariably means late project + more
resources = later projects.

But, sure, there are extreme situations where that wouldn't be true, but I
don't think they pop up often in practice. One should be _extraordinarily_
skeptical of any claim (or interior intuition) that the rule doesn't apply to
your project.

~~~
yequalsx
What I presented was an extreme example but the point stands. Obviously things
like Windows OS, iOS, etc. are projects that benefitted from an increase in
manpower and this increase in manpower did not stifle development or cause
delays. It is true that doubling the manpower does not double progress. It's
not a linear relationship.

------
fatjokes
I use to collaborate with IBM Research. Basically anyone worth a damn
eventually goes to Google/FB/MSFT. IBM pays less than half of their
competition and doesn't provide a fraction of the resources. Their only appeal
is that they have a lower bar for the "research scientist" role, which appeals
to a lot of PhDs who may not have enough top publications to their name.

------
uptownfunk
You really have to give IBM credit for their marketing.

Then again, it's always going to be this debate of engineers clamoring for
better engineering and consultants clamoring for flashier powerpoint decks,
animations, and other gimmicks.

Good technology (executed with an end-business goal in mind) delivers real
value, and that real value is what will sell in perpetuity. Otherwise, you can
only go on fooling people for so long...

I would be curious to see how the MIT academics play with the IBM consultants
/ engineers. Would be curious to hear anyone's comment on the inside of this
closely connected.

~~~
kitd
> I would be curious to see how the MIT academics play with the IBM
> consultants / engineers.

Almost certainly, the IBM engineers they play with won't be the typical
contractors customers normally see. They'll be high-quality and knowledgeable.

------
altotrees
This is super interesting. I know there is much heated discussion here on HN
about IBM in terms of the Watson project and some of the claims made vs.
reality etc. I am pretty far removed from the trajectory of IBM's AI research,
but can only figure a joint effort with MIT will bolster their reputation by
association if nothing else.

Just finished reading about Facebook and Microsoft launching a joint AI effort
not five minutes ago. To those enmeshed in or working in AI research: are
these joint efforts a response to Tensorflow and Google?

~~~
et2o
My cynical take: For a company like IBM it doesn't take a lot of money to
sponsor an institute. It's likely a marketing effort. They've seen all of the
bad press.

~~~
mathattack
Indeed. $24 million a year is pocket change compared to the advertising budget
of Watson. Additionally, if it nets them a little academic credibility and a
few MIT student grads per year, all the better.

------
bluetwo
All due apologies to the late Marvin Minsky, but has MIT really been a leader
in AI lately?

~~~
bbctol
No, and that's why they're taking this deal.

------
gaius
Got to wonder why MIT would shackle themselves to the albatross that is
Watson. Or given Google's antics with think tanks, be willing to take the risk
that unfavourable results will be career-limiting.

~~~
randcraw
240 million reasons. No doubt MIT will mention IBM in their reportage of this
collaboration. But I bet they use the word "Watson" as little as possible.

------
Thriptic
Is this only going to be at IBM's new facility on Binney or are they going to
have space in the facilities MIT is building now?

------
briga
I wonder if it's a good thing that the new norm is for entire AI research labs
to be gobbled up by giant tech companies.

~~~
yeukhon
You do need a lot of computational power and sufficient test bed in the long
run. You certainly can fo AI research on a dozen computers, but would be far
better if someone else handle the infrastructure and you just do the research.
It makes sense to partner with the giant tech. Also, well-known researchers
almost always do joint research with researchers at giant tech because they
know each other already.

