I think this is the most interesting part. Watson seems to work WITH you rather than for you.
Presently it appears to work very well as an inspiration and suggests things that are so far out you would never come up with them yourself. An example is the radish, cod, ginger, olives, tomato and green onions pizza.
I would've loved a bit more focus on what other people thought though. I got the impression that the writer was a bit biased to love the dishes before he tried them.
Absolutely right, and that interaction is the most interesting part. This also reminds me a talk about Palantir at GovCon. The speaker tells us two stories.
The first story was about Advanced Chess. We know that human and computer both are good at chess for two very different reasons. We also know they these skills can complement each other. So in Advanced Chess, instead of playing against each other, human and computer form a single team and fight against another team.
It's easy to think that if we take the single strongest chess player and the single most powerful computer, they might dominate the tournament. But that didn't happen. The team that won the tournament was a modestly skilled chess player with a regular laptop running freely available open source chess tools. So how did this happen?
It turned out there was a third factor nobody consider. It was the quality of interface between the man and the machine. How easy it is for a human to develop the strategic oversight, the guidance and to rely on the computer for tactical component. Focusing on, on what they are individually good at.
The second story is about Paypal. At the time of Paypal, several other companies were trying to get involve in online payment industry. The other companies were CitiBank, eBay, Western Union. But one by one they folded back where the Paypal succeeded. What happened?
It turns out large corporations were trying to develop a better system to automatically verify transactions. But Paypal went the other way around. They tried to increase the effectiveness of their human analyst by providing better computing service. Everything on the computing side was to empower/help the analyst to explore his data faster, detect anomalies and to make a quick/better decision. It's the man not the machine that had the final decision in Paypal.
I think the core idea of these two stories is how differently can we use our computing power, and how we are doing so far. I think most solutions are trying to develop a set of fixed answers, and hoping their answer are better then their competitors. But I think, it should be the other way around.
Computers are here to assist us. The design of a system should not be reaching a fixed the goal, instead it should help us; acting as a guide providing necessary information helping to make an informed decision. And if used properly, human can already attain superpower.
And I am really curious to see how IBM Watson fits into this bill!
He tells us the stories within the first 10 minutes. In the following 10 minutes, he talks about what how Palantir's software fit into the picture.
And in the last 20 minutes, he demonstrates the software as an intelligence officer, who is tracking some bad guy across multiple countries. Information have been fed to the software by informants. And now he job is to organize those information into patterns, and trying to come up with a hypothesis about what these bad guys are doing, and what they will do in the future. Finally he shared his hypothesis with his colleagues.
Just like Advance Chess, they are trying to reduce friction between data and the data analyst.
actually this sounds similar to a lot of seafood crudo dishes i've eaten in many major cities.
olive, tomato and onions is basically a bruschetta topping or a basic tapenade/salsa type mixture (to go with the bread or the 'pizza crust'). radish goes well with protein. think horseradish on steaks, sushi, etc.
i think that dish would taste pretty good, if you ate it like bruschetta. or you could eat the toppings with a fork and dip the crust in olive oil. or just fold it up like a taco and dip the whole thing in olive oil.
i think the primary advantage of watson is it isn't constrained by pre-conceived cultural combinations that humans tend to stick to. also why 'fusion' can taste amazing, or be really horrible.
The only thing 'Pizza' is the bread/base, the rest is something else?
Most of the different Watson tools share various code elements - for example, we're not writing a new system natural language processing, entity recognition, and relationship extraction for each tool. Watson technologies, however, are designed so they work inside of a particular domain or with a specific corpus. So, the work with MD Anderson (http://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/news-releases/2013/ibm-wa...) has a nearly 100% separate data set from Chef Watson with Bon Appétit. I say nearly 100% separate data set because there are some common data sets derived from publicly available sources (e.g. wikipedia) that may be used by both systems.
One of the other challenges is who the systems are designed for. Although anyone can use Chef Watson, it's not designed with everyone in mind. We've realized that the people with the best experiences are a little bit adventurous when it comes to cooking - they'll play around and improvise with flavors to create new recipes. This is a different demographic than would likely be using the health care system (doctors and care providers).
I didn't try it, but I don't think it so strange. Here in Argentina we eat something slightly similar: "pastel de papas" http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastel_de_papa . I really like it. (It's very similar to "cottage pie" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_pie )
And it was pretty good! Fundamentally, I don't see why it couldn't have been great in the hands of a better chef.
Besides this sort of experimentation is how you make interesting, unique dishes. It's a lot of fun.
I wonder what else can Watson suggest. Vacations? Clothes? Gadgets? ... Dates?
This has so much potential it's not even funny. Computer inference plus human common sense seems like a match made in heaven, and dissipates some of the Skynet-scenario fears.
The big thing with Watson is that it works with people to make them smarter, rather than replacing people. Watson isn't designed to be a single global AI system that will enslave us (well, at least not yet), rather it's designed to be trained so it can go in depth on various topics to make humans smarter at their jobs - whether that's medicine, finance, travel, cooking, or who knows what else.
No registration would be best, but email / OpenID or even other OAuth authenticators such as Twitter would be nice.
Applying Watson to recipes is brilliant marketing, period.
"Yes, it's has great potential, but their are so many nuances that go into a simple meal."
The right programming will probally eventually solve the problem, and AI will replace chefs? I hope it doesn't progress that far though.
Maybe I'm the exception, but when I make myself a meal, these thoughts go through my mind--sometimes(Most of the time I greatful there's food in front of me.) but here goes:
Too much food is probally not healthy--obesity potential and believe in calorie restriction. Did I get enough exercise in order to eat a big meal today? I ate too much protein yesterday, I will cut back today. I will use a little less salt tonight because I need to watch my blood pressure--especially if stressed. Did I include enough fiber because the the medication I'm on is affecting my digestion? Should I eat another portion of fish--the Mercury. Is my date allergic to anything I am cooking, or they a vegan, vegetarian? Did I wash the organic lettuce enough? Can I use all the milk in the recipe, my roommate will not have enough for her Cheerios to tomorrow. Oh, and this portion of ingredients I just pulled out of the frig. just doesn't look right, and I don't want to take a chance on food poisoning.(The expiration date is O.k., and it smells right, but there's something telling me to throw it out. (I notice a cat I feed hovers over it's food sometimes, and doesn't eat the perfectly good can of cat food. I sometimes think, he's not being just finicky, and I'm not going to second guess a few million years of feline nasal receptors; I will just give him a different can of the same food.)
I don't think like this over every meal, but sometimes these thoughts do run through my mind occasionally. Sometimes I think I have a lot of unconscious thought that affect my daily life? It's these nuances that, I think, hope--differentiates humans from machines. In reality, AI does scare me becaucase I think they will get all the kinks worked out, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think about the warning from Hawking's, Gates, and the Tesla guy.
Spoiled food detection is also coming - the food can itself will warn you if it's spoiled: http://www.checkpack.ugent.be/
I can honestly say that's never a statement that has ever crossed my mind, haha.
> Is my date allergic to anything I am cooking, or they a vegan, vegetarian?
This is incredibly frustrating. It seems like every single young woman has bizarre food taboos that are based on no rational basis. The gluten-phobia thing has gotten out of hand, but in general there is just so much food woo going around.
I'll ignore the blatant sexism.
As a young woman, although admittedly not single, who happens to be vegan I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here.
I am vegan because I would rather not have had a sentient animal purposely killed for my meal - and it is a decision I came to after years of thought and consideration.
And yes, there is a growing trend of people caring what they put in their bodies - whether it is noticing that caffeine after 2pm disturbs their sleep, or that as they age they need to consider an increase in b12 or vitamin D - the majority of these choices are very rational ones - I have yet to meet a person whose diet choices fall out of the range of rationality - except, perhaps, the excuses people give me for not cutting down the amount of <insert foot they acknowledge they eat too much of> in their diet.
Stating a fact or observation is not sexist by itself. The anecdotal data around me shows that the people with food intolerance and I won't eat X because someone in the newspaper misinterpreted a study have a even number of X chromosomes. To make sure there is balance - there is a lot of bronutrition in the opposite direction.
> I have yet to meet a person whose diet choices fall out of the range of rationality
Any person that observes religious restrictions - that is not rational. Also any person that refuses to eat X based on pseudo, improperly conducted or improperly understood science.
> I am vegan because I would rather not have had a sentient animal purposely killed for my meal - and it is a decision I came to after years of thought and consideration.
That will push you only to vegetarian. To go vegan you need more reasons.
> That will push you only to vegetarian. To go vegan you need more reasons.
There are no animal products which do not involve the killing of sentient creatures (if you doubt this I would suggest learning about the process by which milk or eggs are farmed).
I spend the summers on a (nonindustrial) farm, have taken eggs directly from under the hen, milked a cow, drank honey directly from the centrifuge and slaughtered some chickens (funny) and pigs (meh). I am well accustomed to the process.
Your vegan foodstuff also require the killing of sentient creatures - to grow food we have displaced a lot of animals from their habitats. Sometimes quite forcefully. So yeah - you probably have fewer animals on your conscience , but you have some.
"My doctor has told me I should not take in as much potassium as I have been so I am reducing my consumption of legumes" and "I have an ethical objection to killing sentient creatures so I restrict my diet in ways that minimize such killing"
Are both sound, rational judgements which do not require a peer reviewed paper.
>You(sic) vegan foodstuff also require the killing of sentient creatures - to grow food we have displaced a lot of animals from their habitats. Sometimes quite forcefully. So yeah - you probably have fewer animals on your conscience , but you have some.
I agree with you, completely - it is an uphill battle. It is very difficult to not directly compensate the killing of creatures in a world that considers it moral to kill 50+ billion animals every year (not including marine life) - but my ethics require that I at least try.
That is rational, also requires peered review paper somewhere in the chain. The doctor read it and formulated advice based on it. Or at least that is the way medicine works. I hope.
But is having ethical objection to killing rational itself? We become what we are as being the better killers. Anytime, anywhere?
Well, I don't date men, so my sample size is composed entirely of the women I've dated (the gp quoted was talking about cooking for a date).
I would argue that worrying that much about what you eat is a very privileged problem to have. Nevertheless, it doesn't make much difference to me what somebody else chooses to eat, so long as it doesn't impinge on my freedom to eat what I want. Which is sort of the rub here. I've never been so foolish as to date a vegetarian or a vegan, but here is a list of things that have been unilaterally banned (briefly...) from my refrigerator:
What goes well with what is based on around 5k recipes.
Haven't worked on it for some time though, kinda got stuck. What I'm trying to solve is to make it easier to make a weekly food plan and grocery list.
The website for it is pretty vague.
It's free, and there's a pretty decent web UI once you're logged in.
In related news, I asked it to make me something with:
beer, whiskey, vodka, wine, tequila,cognac, sherry,gin,triple sec,bitters, champagne, merlot, pinot noir
And I'm actually curious to try it!
Source: IBMer who has had a good bit of Chef Watson food. Favorite: Austrian Chocolate Burrito.
seriously, an interesting article and I would love to work with watson in the kitchen, but it obviously sounds like watson leans on butter and salt too heavily to make dishes delicious.