We're now four or five years into the current explosion of machine learning, and pretty much everyone has heard of it. It's not just that startups are forming every day or that the big tech platform companies are rebuilding themselves around it - everyone outside tech has read the Economist or BusinessWeek cover story, and many big companies have some projects underway. We know this is a Next Big Thing.
Going a step further, we mostly understand what neural networks might be, in theory, and we get that this might be about patterns and data. Machine learning lets us find patterns or structures in data that are implicit and probabilistic (hence ‘inferred’) rather than explicit, that previously only people and not computers could find. They address a class of questions that were previously ‘hard for computers and easy for people’, or, perhaps more usefully, ‘hard for people to describe to computers’. And we’ve seen some cool (or worrying, depending on your perspective) speech and vision demos.
I don't think, though, that we yet have a settled sense of quite what machine learning means - what it will mean for tech companies or for companies in the broader economy, how to think structurally about what new things it could enable, or what machine learning means for all the rest of us, and what important problems it might actually be able to solve.
This isn't helped by the term 'artificial intelligence', which tends to end any conversation as soon as it's begun. As soon as we say 'AI', it's as though the black monolith from the beginning of 2001 has appeared, and we all become apes screaming at it and shaking our fists. You can’t analyze ‘AI’.
Indeed, I think one could propose a whole list of unhelpful ways of talking about current developments in machine learning. For example:
This changed what databases could be used for in important ways, and so created new use cases and new billion dollar companies. Relational databases gave us Oracle, but they also gave us SAP, and SAP and its peers gave us global just-in-time supply chains - they gave us Apple and Starbucks. By the 1990s, pretty much all enterprise software was a relational database - PeopleSoft and CRM and SuccessFactors and dozens more all ran on relational databases. No-one looked at SuccessFactors or Salesforce and said "that will never work because Oracle has all the database" - rather, this technology became an enabling layer that was part of everything.
So, this is a good grounding way to think about ML today - it’s a step change in what we can do with computers, and that will be part of many different products for many different companies. Eventually, pretty much everything will have ML somewhere inside and no-one will care.
An important parallel here is that though relational databases had economy of scale effects, there were limited network or ‘winner takes all’ effects. The database being used by company A doesn't get better if company B buys the same database software from the same vendor: Safeway's database doesn't get better if Caterpillar buys the same one. Much the same actually applies to machine learning: machine learning is all about data, but data is highly specific to particular applications. More handwriting data will make a hand-writing recognizer better, and more gas turbine data will also make a system that predicts failures in gas turbines better, but the one doesn't help with the other. Data isn’t fungible.
This gets to the heart of the most common misconception that comes up in talking about machine learning - that it is is some way a single, general purpose thing, on a path to HAL 9000, and that Google or Microsoft have each built *one*, or that Google 'has all the data', or that IBM has an actual thing called ‘Watson’. Really, this is always the mistake in looking at automation: with each wave of automation, we imagine we're creating something anthropomorphic or something with general intelligence. In the 1920s and 30s we imagined steel men walking around factories holding hammers, and in the 1950s we imagined humanoid robots walking around the kitchen doing the housework. We didn't get robot servants - we got washing machines.
Washing machines are robots, but they're not ‘intelligent’. They don't know what water or clothes are. Moreover, they're not general purpose even in the narrow domain of washing - you can't put dishes in a washing machine, nor clothes in a dishwasher (or rather, you can, but you won’t get the result you want). They're just another kind of automation, no different conceptually to a conveyor belt or a pick-and-place machine. Equally, machine learning lets us solve classes of problem that computers could not usefully address before, but each of those problems will require a different implementation, and different data, a different route to market, and often a different company. Each of them is a piece of automation. Each of them is a washing machine.
Going a step further, we mostly understand what neural networks might be, in theory, and we get that this might be about patterns and data. Machine learning lets us find patterns or structures in data that are implicit and probabilistic (hence ‘inferred’) rather than explicit, that previously only people and not computers could find. They address a class of questions that were previously ‘hard for computers and easy for people’, or, perhaps more usefully, ‘hard for people to describe to computers’. And we’ve seen some cool (or worrying, depending on your perspective) speech and vision demos. I don't think, though, that we yet have a settled sense of quite what machine learning means - what it will mean for tech companies or for companies in the broader economy, how to think structurally about what new things it could enable, or what machine learning means for all the rest of us, and what important problems it might actually be able to solve.
This isn't helped by the term 'artificial intelligence', which tends to end any conversation as soon as it's begun. As soon as we say 'AI', it's as though the black monolith from the beginning of 2001 has appeared, and we all become apes screaming at it and shaking our fists. You can’t analyze ‘AI’.
Indeed, I think one could propose a whole list of unhelpful ways of talking about current developments in machine learning. For example:
More useful things to talk about, perhaps, might be:
- Data is the new oil
- Google and China (or Facebook, or Amazon, or BAT) have all the data
- AI will take all the jobs
- And, of course, saying AI itself.
Why relational databases? They were a new fundamental enabling layer that changed what computing could do. Before relational databases appeared in the late 1970s, if you wanted your database to show you, say, 'all customers who bought this product and live in this city', that would generally need a custom engineering project. Databases were not built with structure such that any arbitrary cross-referenced query was an easy, routine thing to do. If you wanted to ask a question, someone would have to build it. Databases were record-keeping systems; relational databases turned them into business intelligence systems.
- Automation
- Enabling technology layers
- Relational databases.
This changed what databases could be used for in important ways, and so created new use cases and new billion dollar companies. Relational databases gave us Oracle, but they also gave us SAP, and SAP and its peers gave us global just-in-time supply chains - they gave us Apple and Starbucks. By the 1990s, pretty much all enterprise software was a relational database - PeopleSoft and CRM and SuccessFactors and dozens more all ran on relational databases. No-one looked at SuccessFactors or Salesforce and said "that will never work because Oracle has all the database" - rather, this technology became an enabling layer that was part of everything.
So, this is a good grounding way to think about ML today - it’s a step change in what we can do with computers, and that will be part of many different products for many different companies. Eventually, pretty much everything will have ML somewhere inside and no-one will care.
An important parallel here is that though relational databases had economy of scale effects, there were limited network or ‘winner takes all’ effects. The database being used by company A doesn't get better if company B buys the same database software from the same vendor: Safeway's database doesn't get better if Caterpillar buys the same one. Much the same actually applies to machine learning: machine learning is all about data, but data is highly specific to particular applications. More handwriting data will make a hand-writing recognizer better, and more gas turbine data will also make a system that predicts failures in gas turbines better, but the one doesn't help with the other. Data isn’t fungible.
This gets to the heart of the most common misconception that comes up in talking about machine learning - that it is is some way a single, general purpose thing, on a path to HAL 9000, and that Google or Microsoft have each built *one*, or that Google 'has all the data', or that IBM has an actual thing called ‘Watson’. Really, this is always the mistake in looking at automation: with each wave of automation, we imagine we're creating something anthropomorphic or something with general intelligence. In the 1920s and 30s we imagined steel men walking around factories holding hammers, and in the 1950s we imagined humanoid robots walking around the kitchen doing the housework. We didn't get robot servants - we got washing machines.
Washing machines are robots, but they're not ‘intelligent’. They don't know what water or clothes are. Moreover, they're not general purpose even in the narrow domain of washing - you can't put dishes in a washing machine, nor clothes in a dishwasher (or rather, you can, but you won’t get the result you want). They're just another kind of automation, no different conceptually to a conveyor belt or a pick-and-place machine. Equally, machine learning lets us solve classes of problem that computers could not usefully address before, but each of those problems will require a different implementation, and different data, a different route to market, and often a different company. Each of them is a piece of automation. Each of them is a washing machine.
by Benedict Evans | Read more:
Image: uncredited
