An Intuitive Lesson in Bayesian Methods
February 14, 2014
Looking for a concise explanation of how Bayesian components work? Research fellow Eliezer Yudkowsky of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute shares on his website “An Intuitive Explanation of Bayes’ Theorem: Bayes’ Theorem for the Curious and Bewildered; an Excruciatingly Gentle Introduction.” The researcher explains why he created and is sharing this explanation:
“While there are a few existing online explanations of Bayes’ Theorem, my experience with trying to introduce people to Bayesian reasoning is that the existing online explanations are too abstract. Bayesian reasoning is very counterintuitive. People do not employ Bayesian reasoning intuitively, find it very difficult to learn Bayesian reasoning when tutored, and rapidly forget Bayesian methods once the tutoring is over. This holds equally true for novice students and highly trained professionals in a field. Bayesian reasoning is apparently one of those things which, like quantum mechanics or the Wason Selection Test, is inherently difficult for humans to grasp with our built-in mental faculties.
“Or so they claim. Here you will find an attempt to offer an intuitive explanation of Bayesian reasoning – an excruciatingly gentle introduction that invokes all the human ways of grasping numbers, from natural frequencies to spatial visualization.”
Yudkowsky makes his lesson engaging with interactive computation examples, sidebars full of “fun facts,” and java-based, graphic-representation applets. Study this page, and you may become the one colleagues turn to for wisdom on this challenging subject.
Cynthia Murrell, February 14, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Google Maps Functionality Regresses with Latest Update
February 14, 2014
Some folks are unhappy that the most recent update to Google Maps eliminates one of its handiest features, the “search nearby” tool. A poster at Slashdot going by BillCable points out this downgrade in “Google Removes ‘Search Nearby’ Function from Updated Google Maps.” The post elaborates:
“After searching for a location, users could click on a marker on the map to pop open a window with the address and other details. This window also contained a link to ‘Search nearby’ — extremely useful if you want to find a list of restaurants near a hotel, the closest pharmacy, or any other business you might want to patronize. Google recently updated their map tool, and ‘Search nearby’ is no longer present. The 300 posts to the Google Product Forums complaining about this omission indicates this is a feature Maps users sorely miss. Google’s work-around (detailed by Google staff in said thread) are a poor substitute and unreliable. There is no indication Google will add the feature to their new tool.”
Well, this is Google we’re talking about; ads come first, search second. I agree with the post’s stance that the “solution” offered by Google’s forum keeper, that users perform an old-school search like “tacos near mountain view,” is laughable. BillCable points out that, for now, one can revert to the old version of Maps. However, as any longstanding Gmail user knows, that option could be snatched away at any time. Ah, well. User preferences only count for so much when the users are not the customers, but the deliverables.
Cynthia Murrell, February 14, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Quick Apps for SharePoint
February 14, 2014
The name of the game for SharePoint 2013 is customization. And while research shows that customization directly correlates to improve satisfaction with SharePoint, it is a time consuming process. So while companies want to invest in customization, they also welcome tips or tricks to streamline the process. Search Content Management addresses this topic in their article, “Easing SharePoint development with Quick Apps for SharePoint.”
“This feature, which Microsoft calls Apps for SharePoint (formerly Web Apps for SharePoint) reduces in-house application design burdens considerably. Placing code within Apps for SharePoint relieves the app designer from having to code from scratch workflows, metadata access and usage. A custom app can access the existing SharePoint code for that functionality without extra effort.”
Stephen E. Arnold is a longtime leader in search and frequently covers SharePoint on his Web service, ArnoldIT.com. He finds that customization is a highly valued feature of SharePoint 2013, and many companies are looking to third party add-ons to help deliver customization quality and efficiency.
Emily Rae Aldridge, February 14, 2014
The Cost of Innovation: Apple Data Lights the Path for Search Vendors and Their Research Costs
February 13, 2014
I have an iPod and an iPad kicking around. We even have a Mac computer. My wife has an iPhone. The gizmo provides her iPhone equipped friends with myriad opportunities to look at baby pictures, check lunch dates on their calendars, and make phone calls. None of the gizmos is without flaws. The Apple product line up is premium priced and designed to meet the perceived needs of semi-affluent or pretend-affluent customers.
I read “A Look at Apple’s R&D Expenditures from 1995-2013.” I urge you to read the story but the main point is the diagram showing Apple’s spending for research and development. I translate “research and development” to “innovation” but you may have a different way to define the phrase. I have snipped a small segment of the chart to illustrate what has happened to Apple, based on the data presented in the write up.
Look at that ramp up. What is fascinating is that the scale in 2013 noses into the $4 billion range. The take away is that the amount of money Apple is spending is rising pretty quickly. Apple has money in the bank and some products that continue to sell well.
Apple is able to invest increasing amounts of money in innovation because it has money.
Search vendors face innovation problems. The chatter on LinkedIn and in the write ups for conferences that flood my email talk around innovation. The discussion pivots on some well worn themes, only tangentially related to information retrieval.
Innovation in search has stalled. Apple is spending aggressively to help ensure its innovation flow.
But what happens when a search vendor with far less money has to innovate. DARPA will award a handful of contracts. Venture funding sources will want a pay off.
The net net is that the cost of innovation in search is not that different in its need for financial investment. Apple can write the checks. Most search vendors—despite the flashy webinars and mindless news releases—cannot.
Stephen E Arnold
E-Reader Domination Proceeding Slowly
February 13, 2014
Could this be good news for Barnes & Noble? TheNextWeb reveals that our transition from dead-tree tomes is just beginning in, “Pew: 69% of Americans Read a Print Book in 2013, 28% Read an E-Book, But Only 4% Went Exclusively Electronic.” The numbers come from Pew‘s ongoing Internet & American Life survey. Reporter Emil Protalinski writes:
“As you can see, while e-books are becoming more popular, print is still king. Most people who read e-books also read print books, and only 4 percent of readers were ‘e-book only’ in 2013. As e-books become available on more devices (not just e-readers), their use is expected to continue growing. Americans increasingly own their own e-readers, tablets, and smartphones, all of which e-books can be consumed on.”
The same survey also revealed that 14 percent of us listened to an audiobook last year, and, interestingly, that those “readers” consumed a wider range of content than others. The article also tells us:
“Overall, 76 percent of adults read a book in some format over the previous 12 months. The mean number of books read or listened to in the past year was 12 and the median number was five (meaning that half of adults read more than five books and half read fewer). The median is a better measure of what the ‘typical’ American’s reading habits look like since the mean can be skewed by a relatively small number of very avid readers.”
Only five books in a year? How sad. I suppose I must be one of those avid readers to which Protalinski refers. The study was conducted in the first week of this year, and quizzed 1,005 American adults; the margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. The report can be e-consumed here [PDF] in all its twenty-page glory.
Cynthia Murrell, February 13, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
HP Still Prepping for Autonomy Fight
February 13, 2014
Regular readers know we have been following HP’s legal actions against Autonomy. Now, reports Computing, “HP ‘Needs More Time’ to Move Ahead with Fraud Claims Against Autonomy.” Writer Peter Gothard reminds us:
“In a legal case stretching since 2012, HP has been trying to sue Autonomy for allegedly overvaluing itself shortly before acquisition in 2011, when HP handed over $11.1bn. A writedown of $8.8bn was later made by HP on the company. HP has now revealed that its board has reviewed the advice given by a committee of independent directors and has ‘made decisions with respect to the actions that it deems to be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.’ This actually means that HP is now in agreement with Autonomy’s lawyers that the lawsuit should go on hold until 28 February 2014, with the board’s recommendations being discussed in detail between 18 and 20 February.”
Well, at least the two sides can agree on one thing. The story notes one other important fact, one that could lead HP execs to regret making a fuss in the first place: Last November, a U.S. district judge advised them that their shareholders may litigate against HP, even against CEO Meg Whitman personally, for failing to share suspicions about the Autonomy deal as soon as they noticed fishy-looking numbers. What’s next in this legal drama? Stay tuned.
Cynthia Murrell, February 13, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Yahoo Tops Google on Web Property Roster
February 13, 2014
Anyone convinced of Google’s inevitable Internet dominance should take a gander at the numbers TheNextWeb shares in “comScore: Yahoo Beats Google as Top Web Property in the U.S. for Six Months Straight.” This chart of the top 50 U.S.-based Web properties as of the end of 2013, put together by analytics firm comScore, does indeed show Yahoo ahead of Google (and everyone else) in terms of unique visitors. The very brief write-up notes:
“We went back to make sure, and indeed Yahoo has topped comScore’s list for the last six months straight, starting in July 2013 (before that, it was first way back in May 2011). It’s safe to say that Yahoo’s gold medal is now a trend – an impressive feat given that Yahoo’s numbers exclude Tumblr, which is ranked at #30.”
I want to point out one caveat: the chart only covers desktop access, specifically from “home, work and university locations.” I wonder how the numbers would be different if mobile were included.
Cynthia Murrell, February 13, 2014
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Hybrid Cloud Options for SharePoint
February 13, 2014
Hybrid clouds involve a combination of a public cloud-based service along with usage of a private cloud system. CMS Wire says that this is a trend that will continue to grow in 2014 and the cover the latest in their article, “Hybrid Clouds for SharePoint: Great, but Not for Everyone.”
The article says:
“The focus has not only been the public cloud, but also the hybrid cloud, which combines public cloud services (like Office 365) and applications / storage located in a private cloud. According to Gartner, it’s this hybrid cloud model that will really find its wings in 2014. Gartner actually predicts that by 2017 over half of the mainstream organizations will have a hybrid cloud.”
Stephen E. Arnold is a longtime leader in search and often covers SharePoint on his information service, ArnoldIT.com. SharePoint and the cloud is a common topic on ArnoldIT.com, as users are intrigued by the Office 365 release. And while the jury is still out on concerns like security and ease of use, the cloud is a trend that is here to stay. The cost of storage continues to drop and users are more and more interested in supported services to streamline workflow.
Emily Rae Aldridge, February 13, 2014
IBM: To Fund Watson, Cost Cutting Seems Necessary
February 12, 2014
I find Watson, the $10 billion future revenue engine, fascinating. It seems that cost cuts are needed to create space for the next generation search system.
I read “IBM Layoffs Strike First in India; Workers Describe Cuts as ‘Slaughter’ and ‘Massive‘”. Hyperbole is not unfamiliar when it comes to things IBM. I am not sure that the write up is objective, balanced, and sensitive to the needs of the US firm.
This quote struck me as a melodramatic:
“People broke down after seeing the inhuman [sic] treatment.”
I did note this passage:
One analyst has estimated that IBM will cut 13,000 of its more than 434,000 workers, based on the amount of money set aside for the rebalancing IBM disclosed after another quarter of disappointing earnings. A similar action in 2013 led to some 3,500 job cuts in North America alone, with several hundred hitting IBM’s North Carolina work force.
The article blurs layoffs in India with those in North Carolina. Perhaps some IBM employees will be able to ask Watson, “Why me?” If that whizzy good system is not available, perhaps those affected will dive into the lore in the magazine Harvard Business Review to learn why large companies take obvious and quite logical steps. The “inhumane” and “slaughter house” wording is not part of the MBA ethos in my experience. “Bonus,” “hitting targets,” and “promotion” are more common words for many senior managers.
I was not able to locate any outputs about Watson for my query, “How will Watson generate $10 billion in revenue more quickly than Autonomy generated $800 million?”
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2014
Getting a Failing Grade in Artificial Intelligence: Watson and Siri
February 12, 2014
I read “Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid” in 1999 or 2000. My reaction was, “I am glad I did not have Dr. Douglas R. Hofstadter critiquing my lame work for the PhD program at my university. Dr. Hofstadter’s intellect intimidated me. I had to look up “Bach” because I knew zero about the procreative composer of organ music. (Heh, heh)
Imagine my surprise when I read “Why Watson and Siri Are Not Real AI” in Popular Mechanics magazine. Popular Mechanics is not my first choice as an information source for analysis of artificial intelligence and related disciplines. Popular Mechanics explains saws, automobiles, and gadgets.
But there was the story, illustration with one of those bluish Jeopardy Watson photographs. The write up is meaty because Popular Mechanics asked Dr. Hofstadter questions and presented his answers. No equations. No arcane references. No intimidating the fat, ugly grad student.
The point of the write up is probably not one that IBM and Apple will like. Dr. Hofstadter does not see the “artificial intelligence” in Watson and Siri as “thinking machines.” (I share this view along with DARPA, I believe.)
Here’s a snippet of the Watson analysis:
Watson is basically a text search algorithm connected to a database just like Google search. It doesn’t understand what it’s reading. In fact, read is the wrong word. It’s not reading anything because it’s not comprehending anything. Watson is finding text without having a clue as to what the text means. In that sense, there’s no intelligence there. It’s clever, it’s impressive, but it’s absolutely vacuous.
I had to look up vacuous. It means, according to the Google “define” function: “having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence; mindless.” Okay, mindless. Isn’t IBM going to build a multi-billion dollar a year business on Watson’s technology? Isn’t IBM delivering a landslide business to the snack shops adjacent its new Watson offices in Manhattan? Isn’t Watson saving lives in Africa?
The interview uses a number of other interesting words; for example:
- Hype
- Silliest
- Shambles
- Slippery
- Profits
Yet my favorite is the aforementioned—vacuous.
Please, read the interview in its entirety. I am not sure it will blunt the IBM and Apple PR machines, but kudos to Popular Mechanics. Now if the azure chip consultants, the failed Webmasters turned search experts, and the MBA pitch people would shift from hyperbole to reality, some clarity would return to the discussion of information retrieval.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2014
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
