Artificial Intelligence: A Jargon Mandala to Understand the Universe of Search
October 12, 2015
I read “Lux: Useful Sankey Diagram on AI.” A Sankey diagram, according to Sankey Diagrams a “Sankey diagram says more than 1,000 pie charts.” The assumption is, of course, that a pie chart presents meaningful data. In the energy sector you can visual flows in complex systems. It helps to have numbers when one is working towards a Sankey map, but if real data are not close at hand, one can fudge up some data.
Here’s the Sankey diagram in the write up:
You can see an almost legible version at this link.
What the diagram suggests is that certain information access and content processing functions flow into data mining, machine learning, and statistics. If you are a fan of multidimensionality, the arrow of time may flow in the reverse direction; that is from data mining, machine learning, and statistics to affective computing, cognitive computing, computational discovery, image and video analytics, language translation, navigation, recommender systems, and speech recognition.
The intermediary state, tinted a US currency green provides intermediating operations or conditions; for example, anomaly detection, collaborative filtering, computer eavesdropping, computer vision, pattern recognition, NLP, path planning, clustering, deep learning, dimensionality reduction, networks graphic models, online reinforcement learning, pattern similarity, probabilistic modeling, regression, and, my favorite, search algorithms.
The diagram, like the wild and crazy chemical imagery for Watson, seems to be a way to:
- Collect a number of discrete operations
- Arrange the operations into some orderly framework
- Allow the viewer to perceive relationships or the potential for relationships among the operations.
In short, skip the wild and crazy presentations by search and content processing vendors about how search enables broader and, hence, more valuable activities. Search is relegated to an entry in the intermediating column of the Sankey diagram.
My thought is that some folks will definitely love the idea that the many different specialties of content processing can be presented in a mandala which invites contemplation and consideration.
The diagram makes clear that when a company wants to know what one can do with the different and often clever operatio0ns one can perform with content, the answer may be, “Make a poster and hang it on the wall.”
In terms of applications, the chart makes quite explicit that some clever team will have to put the parts in order. Does this remind you of building a Star Wars character from Lego blocks.
The construct is the value, not the individual enabling blocks.
Stephen E Arnold, October 12, 2015
Woof: Mobile Search Is the Big Dog
October 12, 2015
Tiny screen. Lots of eye balls. Many opportunities. What happens to the old school business model of the Alphabet Google thing? One wizard read some posts and did some Googling to provide some insight into this potentially annoying shift into the way pesky humans do information.
Navigate to “Worldwide, More Than Half Of Google’s Searches Happen On Mobile: Google Also Says It Has Indexed 100 Billion Links within Apps.” Okay, big numbers. Maybe rounded a bit, but let’s look at the beef, not the ersatz crunch in the search taco:
It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean that desktop searches have diminished. Stats on desktop search from comScore routinely show the overall amount has risen from month to month. Rather, it’s that mobile searches have been a growing new segment that have caught up and now overtaken desktop search. On the whole, desktop search has grown. As a percentage, it has dropped. That’s because we’re living in what I’ve called an “always-on search world,” where we’re always able to search.
Yep, I like that always on angle. Very 24×7.
Several thoughts:
- The Google remains dependent on online advertising and that seems unlikely to change.
- The mobile environment seems to be Google’s new Comstock lode
- The management shifts at the Google may be more about revenue than they appear
- Alphabet Google continues to chug along. No flashing yellow lights for the Google fans.
Here in Harrod’s Creek I sense some Google fatigue particularly by mobile users who don’t know where online information comes from. Just a few short years ago, the answer was Google. Now, there might be a different perception of search brand power. SEO professionals, start your engines.
Stephen E Arnold, October 12, 2015
Web Site Search Goes Camping
October 12, 2015
It is a common fact that if you are a major retailer and your Web site’s search function is horrible, you are losing millions of dollars in sales. Cabela’s is the world’s largest marketer of hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor merchandise decided to upgrade their Web site with GroupBy says PR Newswire in the press release, “Cabela’s And GroupBy Partner To Improve Site Search.”
With GroupBy’s advice, Cabela’s has made a good choice:
“After careful evaluation, Cabela’s selected Searchandiser to replace their Oracle Endeca site search, as they required a robust solution that would deliver accurate search results and an improved user experience for their customers. ‘At Cabela’s we strive to continually improve our customer experience and search relevance is an opportunity area we have identified,’ said Scott Johnstone, Cabela’s Technology Partner Relationship Manager. ‘To that end, we are partnering with GroupBy Inc. to leverage their merchandising tools, search expertise and the underlying technology.’”
As Cabela’s market expands, with Searchandiser creates a better online shopping experience for users with more secure transactions. Any outdoor enthusiast with tell you that equipment is vital for a good adventure. As more people are heading outside to experience the great outdoors, they rely on a decent Web site to order their supplies and gear. Cabela’s is set to meet the new surge with better searching functionalities.
Whitney Grace, October 12, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
CFO Ruth Porat Leads Transparency Directive at Alphabet Google
October 12, 2015
The article titled Google Opens Up to Wall Street on The Wall Street Journal describes the transparency efforts ramping up at Google under the direction of new CFO Ruth Porat. It seems that as risks go up for the “Alphabet” Google thing, the company wants to be more transparent to the Wall Street crowd.
“The new approach has contributed to recent gains in Google shares, Mr. Mahaney said. Google shares are up about 15% in the past three months, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index has dropped about 8%. Google still doesn’t offer revenue or earnings forecasts, as many companies do. But Ms. Porat is trying to provide insight to help investors better understand how Google runs its business and help analysts more easily build financial models. A Google spokesman declined to comment.”
The most impactful initiative the article discusses is “Office Hours,” or analyst and investor briefings wherein Google speaks to public information that will effect expenses, such as the seasonal hiring of recent college graduates. Investor and analyst briefings of this sort are common at most companies, although they skirt securities regulations. As long as Google only discusses already publicly disclosed information in the sessions they are safe.
Chelsea Kerwin, October 12, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Innovation: Not Slowing, Stopped in Search
October 11, 2015
I read “You Call this Progress?” Good article.
The write up points out that some fans of progress may be annoyed at the notion that today’s whiz kids are painting rooms, not building houses. I highlighted this statement:
I think we should admit that our hypothetical 1885 person would be more bewildered by the passage of 65 years than the 1950 “modern” human. I think we should admit that the breathtaking pace of major breakthroughs has actually declined.
I am in agreement with this pace of innovation thing. Years ago when I was working in the thrilling field of big time investing, I remember a discussion among some of my colleagues. The point of the argument was the notion that innovation was ripping right along. I suggested that innovation was more like breeding hamsters than creating a new order of furry friends.
No one at the financial outfit really cared. The focus was making money on things that would create investment opportunities. Do not confuse making money with creating a jet engine.
I can offer one possible market sector which illustrates that innovation has slowed to a crawl in the last 50 years.
Consider search and retrieval. If we look at the early systems, there were things like string matching and counting stuff. There was lemmatization. In fact, most of today’s search and content processing companies are not offering products dramatically different from what was available decades ago.
Sure, today’s products sport graphical interfaces, exploit fast and cheap hardware, and coding methods which allow a stream of content to be moved through an information factory. These are interesting developments, but the underlying procedures are look for strings, alert software or a person when an anomaly occurs, and convert counts for an entity into a graph. Toss in some geo coordinates and ring investors’ door bells.
The problem with search is that humans often have a tough time expressing exactly what they want. That’s why looking at search histories and asking questions like, “What’s the signal for a person’s looking for a pizza joint?” work pretty well.
Also, humans may not know what the heck they want. Armed with partial or incomplete information, the poor human has to look through books from a library or browse a list or colorful icons until something appears meaningful.
I would suggest that once the marketing hoo-hah is stripped from the descriptions of search and retrieval systems, what’s left over reveals the paucity of innovation in information access. Google’s biggest recent search innovation is providing a pointer to content available within an app. Interesting but not discovering penicillin.
Perhaps that’s why it is easier to ask friends or colleagues than use Fancy Dan tools?
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2015
Hewlett Packard a Lightning Rod in Disclosure Only Settlements
October 11, 2015
Ah, Hewlett Packard. A source of interesting news is the company. I read “Judge Rejects HP Settlement of Shareholders’ Suit over Aruba Merger.” I think it is my perception at work. When I think about HP, the word that comes to mind is litigation. The Autonomy dust up is difficult for me to block. Years ago, I think there were some Board of Directors’ pranks and then there was the thrill of the Digital Equipment acquisition. Ah, AltaVista. More memories.
In this article I learned:
The lawsuit stemmed from H-P’s $2.7 billion purchase of Aruba Networks. It was brought on behalf of Aruba shareholders, but Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster said the proposed settlement offered them little of value. The agreement called for H-P to disclose additional information about the sale process and pay the plaintiffs’ lawyers a fee of $387,500. Such so-called disclosure-only settlements, in which the only money paid goes to lawyers who bring the suits, are now the norm in the litigation that follows nearly every corporate merger.
I think the idea is that not much productive comes from these deals. HP now has an opportunity to embiggen opportunities for various legal eagles.
HP and its acquisition methods appear to be where the action is at company these days. What about technology? What about Autonomy’s DRE and IDOL systems? I don’t hear too much.
Stephen E Arnold, October 11, 2015
Alphabet Google: Dreams of a Churning Welchian
October 10, 2015
I like the name General Electric. I liked the acronym GE. I am not sure about abc.xyz or abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.com. I like the idea of an industrial company emulating GE or one of its Welchian variants. I am okay with GE becoming a software company. GE still makes jet engines, which in time of war may become a hot selling item.
Alphabet Google does not suggest a new version of GE. Alphabet Google does remind some Wall Street wizards of GE. That’s probably because there was a GE centric case at their business school and general awareness of Mr. Welch’s books and personal life. Who knew excitement brewed at the Harvard Business Review? Not me.
I read a woulda coulda shoulda write up called “Google’s Alphabet Could Become the Next GE.” Since we are dealing with supposition and hypothesis, let’s follow the logic.
According to the write up:
For GE, the success of the light bulb became a foundation for diversification and market dominance in areas like aircraft engines, oil and gas, and financial services. Similarly, the success of Google search will be the foundation to new products and services like hardware division Nest, its Life Sciences unit, and shipping, logistics, and shopping service, Express.
GE made stuff. Google sells ads. GE made more stuff, dallied in finance and a number of other disciplines and is now reinventing itself. I think Siemens is doing the same thing.
Google does bits and now wants to do many, many other things. The interests range from balloons to solving death, from doing evil to do the right thing, from controlling mobile phones to making money from said phones.
The write up asserts that Google can make a lot of money from home automation, life sciences (the death thing), local commerce, and broadband (just like AT&T and Verizon, bless their copper wire Bell heads). If these bets were not sufficient, the write up suggests that Alphabet can spell money with virtual reality, drones, and investments.
No mention of robots which are likely to be a hot property if there is a rapid shift from humans on the front line to robots in formation.
The write up points out that the parallel is not perfect. Okay, nice hedge. But it seems to me that my view from Harrod’s Creek is slightly different:
- Google (the old ad thing) is under lots of legal pressure. The reorganization may put some other folks in depositions and in court rooms.
- The big dogs at Google are bored and want to do more interesting things. Solving death is probably interesting because disease, ageing, and weird protein dances can trim one’s options. The efforts are, from my vantage point, math and science club projects. My hunch is that significant revenue may arrive but one has to sell something people want; for example, light bulbs.
- The search business is not an intellectual challenge. Search is now commoditized. There are alternatives to Google if one pokes around a bit. Academic interests? Well, check out iSeek.com. General search? A combination of Yandex with one of the start up search systems like Qwant.com or Unbubble.eu might fill the gap. Want a pizza? Let the iPhone deliver.
Net net: Google is more like a microwaved version of Jimmy Ling’s vision. The structure, the diversity, and the sheer complexity of the LTV operation may be in Alphabet’s future.
Let’s talk turkey. Google’s revenue derives from ads. Prior to the Google IPO a legal dust up with Yahoo about the Overture/GoTo business model was resolved. Hooray for struggling Yahoo. Since the IPO Google has been unable to diversify its revenues. Look at the digital Wal-Mart-type outfit that Amazon has become. Good or bad, Amazon has diversified its revenues. To top off its success, Amazon won’t sell stuff from Google which won’t show Amazon videos. Yikes. Google has remained for more than a decade what Steve Ballmer called a one trick pony.
Now I am supposed to believe that this one trick parva equitum will morph into Northern Dancer’s progeny. I am skeptical, but I don’t have to earn my living whipping up excitement for a company increasingly well known in legal circles. Even Jack Welch dreams about what could be I assume. We know analysts do. Google does science projects.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2015
Privacy Centric Hulbee Secures $9 Million
October 10, 2015
You can search the Web and, in theory, not be tracked. Navigate to Hulbee and enter your query. You may want to do some exploratory clicking to figure out how Hulbee is helping you find the information you want. You can set your default search engine if you use the Alphabet Google Chrome beastie.
According to “Hulbee Bags $9M To Grow Its Pro-Privacy Search Engine,” the system is a Swiss based semantic search company. The write up points out:
It also has its own ad system, rather than bolting on a third party ad network. And again here it’s taking a non-tracking approach. Ads on Hulbee are targeted based on the search query, according to CEO Andreas Wiebe, so there’s no geotargeting or cumulative tracking. (Although users can specify their region in order to ensure more relevant search results, so it may have basic country data. And once you step off Hulbee and onto whatever website you were trying to find chances are their ad networks will start tracking you, unless you’re running an ad blocker…)
Yep, privacy is job one for advertising. Take a moment to explore this system. You may want to compare its output to that of Ixquick and Unbubble, two other privacy oriented outfits.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2015
The Question: How Big Is Big?
October 9, 2015
I recall one of my math teachers yapping about infinity. At the time, I did not care. My reaction was that as long as I could add a one to another number, I could just keep on going. Boring.
Later I became interested in the work of a German who did not drive a Volkswagen diesel. His name was Georg Cantor. As I worked though some of the articles discussing his thinking about comparing the infinite set of rational numbers with the infinite set of natural numbers by a rather brain dead procedure of listing and enumerating all the rational, I realized why the esteemed thinker fell into a programmer-type state politely described as mental illness. When he died in 1918, he thought about infinity and worried about the author of Romeo and Juliet.
I thought of the infinity thing when I read “Is Big Data Too Big?” Where some folks saw a legitimate question, I noted a lack of sensitivity to the perils of thinking about infinity. I assume the author wanted to avoid throwing himself into Joseph of Arimathea’s role in history, ordinality, and cardinality. As a result, the write ignores math and focuses on what I call business philosophy. Socrates, Nietzsche, and Russell were just so short sighted.
I noted this passage:
For major corporations the amount of data they can collect on each of us is vast. Indeed, estimates made about the amount of data collection show that the total volume of data in the world doubled between the start of this year and last month. By 2020 the amount of data in the world will be doubling every seven days. That is just too difficult to get our heads around…!
This exclamation mark approach is a good way to sidestep irritating mathy stuff.
I learned that big data can pose some psychological challenges. Cantor’s acquaintances would probably agree if they were still around and had a Facebook page.
But here’s the killer paragraph:
he vast amount of data and the ever-increasing number of reports causes another psychological issue of being overwhelmed. That leads to disinterest and lack of attention. And that, in turn, means we stop gaining from the data because we are not analyzing it properly. The more data we collect, the less valuable it can become because of our brains. As the article, How Can Big Data Trigger Positive Emotions explains, it is possible to make data interesting and appeal to our staff, but we have to work at it. If we don’t take steps to make data more psychologically engaging we are in danger of just producing data for data’s sake and not getting anything from it other than the desire to collect more data.
I agree. It is important to make numbers more psychologically engaging. Is there a downside? I keep thinking about Georg pondering that the power set of a countably infinite set is uncountably infinite.
Thus, is big data too big? Nope, big data can never be big enough because it will be bigger. Georg, Georg, are you with me on this?
Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2015
Predictive Analytics: The Future of Big Data
October 9, 2015
I read “Predictive Analytics Are the Future of Big Data.” Who makes this pronouncement? None other than mid tier consultants. According to the write up:
Forrester analysts … believe that predictive analytics have never been more relevant and easier to use, and offer ways for forward-thinking enterprises to succeed in competitive sectors.
Why the sudden flurry of interest in predictive analytics? Well, the answer is not far to seek, gentle reader:
Forrester has authored another blast furnace brick of insight called Forrester Wave research Big Data Predictive Analytics Solutions, Q2 2015.
What’s the future hold? I like the predictions as a service. This will be useful to those who want to compare Bing predictions with the actual winner of the Kentucky Derby.
What companies are the leaders in predictive analytics? Forrester offers some well known outfits; for example, the free-spending IBM, the acquisition minded Dell, Microsoft, Oracle, and canny SAP whose enterprise software runs on Oracle, not just HANA. (I bet you knew that.) There are some surprises; for example, Alpine, Alteryx, and Angoss. The graduate student in psychology essential SAS is singled out as a leader in predictive analytics. (I am delighted to know that SAS is not a collection of components and programming methodologies with which one can build numerical machines.) There are some outfits not on my radar because I am simply not with the Forrester program; for example, KNIME and Predixion.
But the most interesting leader in predictive analytics is FICO, which is a publicly traded outfit active in 90 countries . How fresh are FICO’s predictive methods? Pretty fresh based on the Forrester analysis. I noted this passage on the FICO Web site:
Founded in 1956, FICO introduced analytic solutions such as credit scoring that have made credit more widely available, not just in the United States but around the world. We have pioneered the development and application of critical technologies behind decision management. These include predictive analytics, business rules management and optimization. We use these technologies to help businesses improve the precision, consistency and agility of their complex, high–volume decisions.
I am okay with innovations from a company with 59 of doing math for decision management and, of course, predictive analytics. (Wasn’t that calculator and mainframe centric?)
How can you get a copy of the Forrester report and learn about the companies pioneering in the predictive analytics sector? Due to the ominous legal verbiage on my copy of the high value mid tier report, I did not make a list of the companies nor hint at the wealth of insights the mid tier experts captured in the report. For me to get a copy, I clicked this link and the document became available. For you? I am not sure.
Were any companies omitted from the report. Yep, most of the firms I monitor. I am okay with Microsoft and the other big names, but there are some innovators chugging along but off the radar of the mid tier wizards in the mid tier consulting company.
If a company is not on the radar of a mid tier consulting firm, those companies are essentially irrelevant. I wonder if anyone from a mid tier consulting firm will share this devaluation of a certain Google and In-Q-Tel investment with the Alphabet Google thing?
This report is a marketing play. I hope many Fortune 50 companies turn to Forrester to guidance in predictive analytics. If I were a betting person, I would take the FanDuel-type and DraftKings-type approach to certainty. Oh, I just asked myself, “Maybe this is how the mid tier consulting reports already work?” Interesting question.
Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2015
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
