I'm happy and thoroughly enthusiastic about propagating this:
Most viral video I've ever encountered on the internet. I'm susceptible to the virality of Bob Dylan, who does a subtle, lovely acting job. And I'm enjoying the closeup photography of his wrinkly face.
And let me give Apple equal time, and not because I've always been an Apple and not an IBM person. The Dylan ad reminds me — because of the nicely photographed closeup face and the pleasing music — of an ad that played during last night's football game:
६ ऑक्टोबर, २०१५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
Summing up Bob Dylan as "time passes, love fades" hardly sounds like an endorsement of IBM artificial intelligence.
A problem with the IBM ad is — as I only realized after watching it 4 times — I don't really understand what the product is.
The Apple ad is lovely and repeatedly watchable, very short, and you absolutely know what you're supposed to want to run out and buy.
Therefore the Apple ad is much better.
Ann Althouse said...
A problem with the IBM ad is — as I only realized after watching it 4 times — I don't really understand what the product is.
The Apple ad is lovely and repeatedly watchable, very short, and you absolutely know what you're supposed to want to run out and buy.
Therefore the Apple ad is much better.
Agree.
A lot of ads seem this way. After they're over, you think ... what was that even about?
Re "time passes, love fades"...
Meade starts singing "Time passes slowly up here in the mountains..."
... and says: "I notice he didn't stay up there in the mountains with his sweetheart."
"A lot of ads seem this way. After they're over, you think ... what was that even about?"
I noticed on the 5th or so viewing that there's an arrow to click on for more information. I clicked, scanned the page, and I still don't know what the product is.
So, functionally, the product is Dylan. Well played, Bob Dylan!
I'm susceptible to the virality of Bob Dylan
Unnecessary words: the virality of.
You watched the ad 5, 6, 10 times?
Ann Althouse said...
A problem with the IBM ad is — as I only realized after watching it 4 times — I don't really understand what the product is.
The Apple ad is lovely and repeatedly watchable, very short, and you absolutely know what you're supposed to want to run out and buy.
Therefore the Apple ad is much better.
I noticed on the 5th or so viewing that there's an arrow to click on for more information. I clicked, scanned the page, and I still don't know what the product is.
So, functionally, the product is Dylan. Well played, Bob Dylan!"
Frightening.
And IBM hasn't been the flip side of Apple in quite some time.
Ann Althouse said...
A problem with the IBM ad is — as I only realized after watching it 4 times — I don't really understand what the product is.
They aren't trying to sell a product. Instead, they're trying to present the message that IBM is still relevant, in this case in advanced AI research. Not every commercial has to be about a product.
"Not every commercial has to be about a product."
I agree, since I watched it several times before noticing I didn't know what the product was.
Maybe it's just a plea to think well of the overall brand.
"Ann Althouse said...
"Not every commercial has to be about a product."
I agree, since I watched it several times before noticing I didn't know what the product was.
Maybe it's just a plea to think well of the overall brand."
They are selling a capability. A very valuable one for businesses. Of course they won't come up with a product that records and autotunes your voice so you can send it to your girlfriend, but they may cure cancer. So yeah, Apple wins.
Postscript to the Apple ad: he knocks her up, then splits.
Maybe it's just a plea to think well of the overall brand.
I remember Enron doing a lot of that type of advertising, shortly before their business model hit the fan.
I always assume the timing relates to when the CEO's stock options become exercisable.
I think the point of the IBM commercial is "Hey, if we can do this with Dylan's songs, imagine how many of your young lawyers reading emails for discovery we could put out of work!
Some ads a product ads. Others are brand ads, that don't sell anything in particular, but relate to people what the brand is basically about. That said, the IBM ad is bad. Bob Dylan has a conversation with Watson. Why? Why is Bob Dylan there? Is it so Watson can talk about his specs of how fast/much he/she/it can read? Why do you need Bob Dylan to do that?
IBM is doing a decent job in the business sector. They're still a major player. But they are not Apple at all. They don't build consumer devices nor platforms for consumer interactions. Why advertise to consumers? I guess because brand managers and people who make IT infrastructure decisions are humans, too. So let's reach them when they're human and not when they're on the job. Fine. But at least help me (your target) understand what you'd like me to do (besides clicking a screen) or how to think about you.
Rather than play or write a song with Watson, which would've been charming, Dylan gets up and leaves. He spends 20 seconds sitting down for no real reason whatsoever and talking with an inanimate object.
Apple's advertising challenge is a lot easier. Connect people to their products, which are readily available.
"A problem with the IBM ad is — as I only realized after watching it 4 times — I don't really understand what the product is."
You're not their target audience. However, "cognitive business" isn't an easily understandable term. And the ad didn't help define it. The case studies on the site you might eventually (doubtful) get to from the video details what IBM is doing. However, again, if I'm in business or IT, how does Bob Dylan relate to solving my problems? They probably have research (demographical) that shows their audience likes or listens to Dylan. Therefore, with a lot of money to burn, IBM goes out and gets Dylan.
The product is Watson, and what they've done with it since it whipped Ken Jen on "Jeopardy." It was a question answering machine on the TV show (or perhaps an answer questioning machine?) but since then the scientists at the TJ Watson labs in Yorktown Heights have generalized it into a machine that learns and displays cognitive capabilities that an ordinary person (i.e., not an AI expert) would regard as demonstrating an ability to reason from what it learns and to learn from its mistakes.*
The last demo I saw, circa 2013, I thought Watson had some difficulty with creativity. So I think the Watson of 2015 could easily ace the classes at Wisconsin Law, but would struggle to write an insightful article for the "Wisconsin Law Review."
_________________
* I can't resist pointing out that in this regard it readily surpasses most humans and nearly all DC politicians.
"So I think the Watson of 2015 could easily ace the classes at Wisconsin Law..."
I don't think it could answer my questions. They're not about recalling information.
@Althouse, if they're about integrating information and weighing both positive support for your conclusions against negative support against your conclusions, then yes it could. That's the mistake you amateurs keep making; you assume a computer can only look things up. Watson can infer and apply statistical algorithms that closely resemble -- and sometimes exceed -- human judgment.
I don't think it could answer my questions. They're not about recalling information.
That's not what Watson does. It learns and then makes decisions based on what it learns.
The IBM ad is targeting business technology execs who probably are already familiar with Watson. It's targeting people who think of pilot projects in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and who might drop half a million or more on something more substantial. They're not really targeting the general consumer.
As I watched it (I'm a tech exec), I thought it was a clever and effective reminder to get updated on how far Watson has progressed, which, I presume, is exactly what IBM wants.
To the degree it is targeting general consumers, the message is only that IBM can be fun and interesting. It's about image, not product. Based on the professor's reaction, it seems that IBM can claim at least partial success.
It certainly shows Watson is a flop in the (music) creativity department.
FWIW, my spouse, her sister and two good friends just saw Dylan in concert. I was unhappy because I had a long-standing charitable commitment. It turns out he played zero, zip, nada of the old, familiar songs. Based on the feedback of these four, as well as the review of the local paper I had a much better evening.
Oh yeah, the Apple ad is brilliant.
I loved the ending, where Dylan slinks away in despair, realizing that the computer even sings better than he does.
you need a "shillin Dylan" tag
$40,000 question for Ann:
Robert Zimmerman declares that not only is he conservative, but that he is a bit worried about a country led by either Trump or Clinton. So he makes a dramatic, live on CBS plea:
He's jumping in the race for the presidency.
Gut reaction for you, Ann:
If he says he's running as a Republican, do you give him your support???
If he says he's running as an Independent, do you dive in???
Purely hypothetical, but discuss...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा