A Very Brief History of Cognitive Assistants

Hopefully, someone will start a better discussion thread on the history of cognitive assistants, but here is a starting point or baseline discussion.   This very short history of cognitive assistants will examine instances of cognitive assistants.  By instances, we simply mean named systems, projects, or challenges.   However, first we must drive a stake in the ground concerning, “what is a cognitive assistant?”  For example, what capabilities help us distinguish a cognitive assistant from just a “good tool?”

How should we define cognitive assistant?

We will not try to summarize the extensive literature on cognitive assistants and evaluation measures for cognitive assistants in this short discussion, but see Steinfeld (2007) for more.  For our purposes in this short discussion, the difference between a “good tool” and a cognitive assistant can be a fine line.   We will use three cognitive capabilities to help distinguish “good tools” from cognitive assistants: language, learning, and levels (confidence levels in responses).   Language refers to natural language communications in words and sentences, but ultimately includes more – gestures, gaze, diagrams, and much more – all the ways people communicate with each other.   Learning refers to the ability to learn from positive and negative examples of questions and responses, but ultimately included more – direct user feedback and teaching dialogue, analogical reasoning, and more.  Levels refers to the ability to provide estimates of confidence levels in multiple possible responses, but ultimately includes more such as explanation, debating, and argumentation capabilities.  We might want to add a fourth capability “limbs” if we want to talk about embodied cognitive assistants – robots.

Paralleling a short four-stage history of Artificial Intelligence we will examine instances of potential cognitive assistants from these four eras: formative era, micro-worlds era, expert systems era, real world era.

Formative era

1945 MEMEX (Bush)
1962 AUGMENT (Engelbart)

These two early systems provided much of the vision for “cognitive assistants for knowledge workers ” by using technology to augment human intellect, especially with respect to symbolic processing of text and networks of inter-related concepts.

Micro-worlds era

1955 Logic Theorist (Newell and Simon)
1956 Checker Player (Samuel)
1966 Eliza (Weizenbaum)

There are of course many more examples of pioneering systems from this era, but these three provide a nice illustration of three categories.  The Logic Theorist can be seen on the path leading to systems such as WolframAlpha dealing with computable knowledge.    Samuel’s Checker-playing Program was the forerunner of so many game playing programs, culminating in Deep Blue, fulfilling and early AI prophesy of defeating the world champion in Chess, and more recently Watson Jeopardy!.   All these game playing programs can be used in a performance support mode to aid people learning and playing games.   Finally, Eliza illustrates that simple tricks and deception can make for entertaining aspects of cognitive assistants – linking to somewhat surface solutions or deception-oriented versions of the Turing Test grand challenge.

Expert systems era

1965-1987 DENDRAL
1974-1984 MYCIN
1987 Cognitive Tutors (Anderson)
1987 Knowledge Navigator System

The early expert systems led to corporations envisioning cognitive assistants for professionals to improve the productivity and creativity of knowledge-workers across a wide range of jobs.   Cognitive tutors are proxy for all the intelligent tutoring systems, learning support, performance support systems of this era – too numerous to mention.    The Knowledge Navigator video provided an update on MEMEX and AUGMENT in many ways with natural language dialogue and multimedia in an envisioned executive assistant and collaborative research assistant.

Real world era

2009 WolframAlpha
2011 Waton Jeopardy!
2011 SIRI
2014 Watson Solutions

WolframAlpha: Is WolframAlpha a “good tool” or a cognitive assistant?  Wolphra Alpha provides a natural language interface and computational engine for a wide range of natural language and mathematical language queries – pushing the limits of computable knowledge (WolframAlfa 2014).  It is a “good tool” evolving towards becoming a cognitive assistant, once users and other can help it learn, and once it provides levels of confidence on answers.  Currently, WolframAlpha tries to provide one “right” answer, or just give up and reply no answer found, rather than several possible and ranked answers.

Watson Jeopardy! Like all game playing systems, Watson Jeopardy! has a use case where it could be used by a person to compete against competitors to win a game.  Watson Jeopardy! clearly demonstrated some language, learning, and levels capabilities.  If it were to be packaged as an app, or in some other way to help people perform the task of playing and winning Jeopardy games then it could be considered a cognitive assistant.

SIRI: SIRI is clearly marketed as an intelligent or cognitive assistant.  It exhibits language capabilities, but not so much on learning or levels of confidence in alternative answer, but like a search engine it will often return alternatives, if asked for a list of possibilities.  The history of SIRI traces back to CALO and PAL, which were DARPA funded projects, at SRI International (Bosker 2013)

Watson Solutions: Engagement Advisor, Discovery Advisor, Watson Chef, and other Watson Solutions target specific market needs where human expertise needs to be augmented or scaled to improve productivity and quality of specific occupational tasks.   These systems use language, learn, and provide confidence levels for alternative responses.   Still, building these systems is complex and difficult.

Concluding Remarks

This discussion thread aims to collect comments about instances of cognitive assistants throughout history.  Beyond a workable definition of cognitive assistants in terms of capabilities, this discussion thread can ultimately contribute to the discussion of streamlined development and evaluation methodologies for cognitive assistants for all professions.  The Cognitive Systems Institute is motivated by the vision of augmenting and scaling human expertise – providing everyone eventually with an executive assistant, personal coach, and mentor for any and all occupations (Spohrer 2014).

References

Bosker B (2013) SIRI RISING: The Inside Story Of Siri’s Origins — And Why She Could Overshadow The iPhone
January 22, 2013 URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/siri-do-engine-apple-iphone_n_2499165.html

Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The atlantic monthly, 176(1), 101-108.

Colligan B (2011) How the Knowledge Navigator video came to be.
November 20, 2011 URL: http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-the-knowledge-navigator-video-came-about.html

Engelbart, D. C. (1995). Toward augmenting the human intellect and boosting our collective IQ. Communications of the ACM, 38(8), 30-32.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1956). The logic theory machine–A complex information processing system. Information Theory, IRE Transactions on, 2(3), 61-79.

Spohrer, J. (2014) Cognitive Systems: Vision and Directions.  NUS Cognitive Colloquium.
September 12, 2014 URL: http://www.slideshare.net/spohrer/cognitive-20140912-v3

Steinfeld, A., Quinones, P. A., Zimmerman, J., Bennett, S. R., & Siewiorek, D. (2007, August). Survey measures for evaluation of cognitive assistants. In Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems (pp. 175-179). ACM.

WolframAlpha (2014) Timeline of Systematic Data and the Development of Computatable Knowledge.
September 12, 2014 URL: http://www.wolframalpha.com/docs/timeline/computable-knowledge-history-6.html

A short talk

Here is a short talk I give at universities and university incubators, and conferences that bring such groups together.

I lead IBM’s Global University Programs and Cognitive Systems Institute, as well as active in ISSIP.org and service science/service innovation areas.

IBM priorities are CCAMSS = Cognitive, Cloud, Analytics, Mobile, Social, Secure – and the service innovations that tie them all together and make them work for customers.

Regarding startups, our primary interest is (1) companies built on our platform (IBM’s platform), and (2) companies the sell to the Forbes Global 2000 (IBM’s primary customers).

In general, IBM is not interested in licensing any IP from universities – we create nearly 7000 patents a year in CCAMSS and related areas, and have been #1 company in the world for 21 years on patent creation, which is about a $1B year licensing business for us.  We do have tools to help universities license their patents to others though – see IBM SIIP tool, now Watson Discovery Advisor.

IBM has acquired over 140 companies in the last 14 years, about one a month, average age 15 years old on acquisition, and about 66% of them started in a university ecosystem (e.g., SPSS), and average revenue per year on acquisition is order of magnitude $100M rev/year.

IBM is very interested in helping universities create more successful startups that can go zero to a billion in revenue.  We have programs to help startups grow that are built on our platform and sell to our customers.  IBM has programs that help startups sell to big companies – supplier connection.

We see one of the largest opportunities for startups in developing enterprise mobile apps, including cognitive assistants for all occupations as part of smart service systems.

To accelerate collaborations with IBM,  a university might ask these maturity of relationship questions:
(1) does IBM (or IBM customers) recruit students from the university?
(2) do the faculty teach with IBM tools and platform – freely available through the academic initiative?
(3) does the university create startups based on IBM platform?
(4) does the university participate in Smart Camps & Global Entrepreneurship program?
(5) do the startups as they mature make use of the IBM Supplier Connect or other platforms?
(6) does the university and broader ecosystem use any IBM solutions from HPC to asset management?
(7) are there opportunities to purse collaborative research projects together?
(8) is there a regional economic development play (e.g.,  NY state with RPI, OH state with OSU, LA state with LSU, etc.)?
(9) does the university have a full IBM team engaged, PEP, Client Exec, Academic Initiatives Lead, IBMers on Campus, etc.

The best relationships have a full IBM team engaged in regional economic development with universities at the center.

Human-Side of Service Engineering, Las Vegas, NV USA July 26-30, 2015

AHFE HSSE-2015 is less than a year away.

This is a multi-conference with over 2000 participants, with human-factors as an overall theme, and the human-side of service engineering as one of the conferences.

I hope to organize the following session as part of AHFE HSSE-2015, so let me know if you would like to contribute a presentation or a paper (send email to spohrer@us.ibm.com).

 

Title: Smart Service Systems: Augmenting and scaling human expertise with cognitive assistants

Abstract:  Cognitive assistants are beginning to appear for more and more occupations – from doctors to chefs to biochemists – boosting creativity and productivity of workers.  Given this important trend  a better understanding of the role of cognitive assistants in the design of smart service systems will be needed.  The speakers in this session will explore this trend and topic from multiple perspectives, including academic, industry, government, foundation, professional association – as well as the transformation of professions and industries.

References:

Bassett, J. 2014. Memorial Sloan Kettering Trains IBM Watson to Help Doctors Make Better Cancer Treatment Choices.  April 11, 2014.
URL http://www.mskcc.org/blog/msk-trains-ibm-watson-help-doctors-make-better-treatment-choices

Bilow, R. 2014. How IBM’s Chef Watson Actually Works. Bon Appetit. June 30, 2014.
URL: http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/trends-news/article/how-ibm-chef-watson-works

Simonite, T. 2014. Software Mines Science Papers to Make New Discoveries.  MIT.  November 25, 2014.
URL: http://m.technologyreview.com/news/520461/software-mines-science-papers-to-make-new-discoveries/

CFP: IT-Enabled Business Innovation @ IEEE IT Professional – September 1, 2014

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computingnow/itcfp2

  • IT-Enabled Business Innovation
  • Submission deadline: 1 Sept. 2014
  • Publication: March/April 2015

IT is a key enabler of business innovation. The impact on businesses in every industry has never been greater. IT is a key source of innovations that drive growth. Indeed, it’s rare to find a product or service that’s not touched by, or enabled by, IT in some manner.

This special issue of IT Professional seeks to provide readers with an overview of the current issues and practices as well as a look into the future as IT professionals and technologies become indispensable as key enablers of product and service development and the creation of new markets. We seek articles from industry, business, academia, and government.

Topics of interest include the following:

  • IT as an innovation platform
  • IT as a driver of business transformation
  • IT innovation best practices
  • Innovative IT-enabled business models
  • IT as an innovation accelerator
  • IT and open innovation
  • IT-enabled service innovation
  • Radical and incremental innovation for digital services
  • IT-enabled business strategy
  • Leveraging big data & analytics in the innovation process
  • The role of IT in facilitating value co-creation and co-innovation
  • Defining new markets with IT innovation • Getting IT ready to innovate
  • IT professionals as business strategists
  • From IT projects to business strategy
  • Innovation of digital services
  • Emerging social technologies
  • The next wave of mobility technology
  • The future of wearable IT
  • Ideation and the wisdom of crowds
  • IT and the autonomous future
  • Internet of things
  • Medical IT innovation
  • Servitization with IT Submissions

Feature articles should be no longer than 4,200 words with no more than 20 references (with tables and figures counting as 300 words). Illustrations are welcome. For author guidelines, including sample articles, please see: www.computer.org/portal/web/peerreviewmagazines/acitpro

Submit your article at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/itpro-cs

Questions?

For more information, please contact the Guest Editors:

Service Science and Big Data Analytics

Companies often ask about IBM’s efforts in the area of Service Science and Big Data Analytics, so here are a few useful pointers:

 

Service Science
IBM works with over 500 universities worldwide on service science related courses and programs.
An overview of service science was created with Cambridge University in 2008, and can be downloaded here:
http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/resources/service/succeeding-through-service-innovation/
Companies interested in working with IBM (and other companies, universities, government agencies) are encouraged to join ISSIP.org – the International Society of Service Innovation Professionals.  Contact Yassi Moghaddam, Executive Director (yassi@issip.org).
Additional information is available here:
https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/wikis/home?lang=en-us#!/wiki/IBM%20Global%20University%20Programs
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group.php?id=1230

Big Data Analytics
IBM works with over 1000 universities worldwide on big data analytics related courses and programs.
An overview of big data analytics applied to enterprise operations can be found in this recent book:
http://www.amazon.com/Analytics-Across-Enterprise-Realizes-Business/dp/0133833038
Companies interested in working with IBM (and other companies, universities, government agencies) are encourage to contact the IBM Research – Almaden Accelerated Discovery Lab.  IBM Is also active in INFORMS – Operations Research and Management Sciences professional association.
Additional information is available here and here:
http://www-304.ibm.com/ibm/university/academic/pub/page/ban_predictive_analysis
http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group.php?id=144

Cognitive Systems Institute

The Cognitive Systems Institute, which is a new set of IBM university programs in conjunction with IBM Research and the Watson Business Unit,  will focus faculty collaborators on building and evaluating cognitive assistants for every profession.   Artificial cognitive systems, or cognitive systems for short,  exhibit capabilities and/or perform tasks deemed intelligent by natural cognitive systems, such as people.  Professional cognitive assistants are cognitive systems designed to boost the productivity and creativity of professionals.   Cognitive systems researchers belong to a special profession, which improves building and evaluating cognitive systems, working on teams with other professionals, such as computer and information research scientists, human factors engineers and ergonomists,   sociologists,  operations research analysts,  mathematicians, statisticians, industrial engineers, and others.

The Cognitive Systems Institute will focus on professional cognitive assistants that exhibit the three L’s – language, learning, and levels.  Professional cognitive assistants should interact via natural language, learn by ingesting documents, and make recommendations with confidence levels.   For example, the IBM Watson Jeopardy! winning  cognitive system answered natural language questions, ingested Wikipedia and other sources to learn, and provided confidence levels with its answers.  The IBM Watson group is working on cognitive systems to help doctors, financial planners, researchers, and even chefs.   IBM Research is also working on cognitive system that will spar with debaters and politicians to help boost their performance.

The new Cognitive Systems Institute programs will be launched in late August, and will be designed to (1) help prepare faculty to set up Watson/Cognitive aligned courses, with the goal of enabling student teams to develop cognitive apps as part of the Watson Ecosystem,  (2) help prepare faculty and their top graduate students to submit aligned collaborative research proposals to funding agencies, with the goal of developing cognitive systems that boost the productivity and creativity of specific types of professions and professional teams (potentially a key part of what NSF calls “smart service systems”),  (3) help create linkages between faculty and IBM Researchers to define cognitive system grand challenges with clear measurable business and societal impact that might be achievable in the next 3-5 years, with the goal of further advancing the field of cognitive systems research and increasing aligned national research investments.  For example of a grand challenge, IBM’s Watson Jeopardy! system (2011) required close collaboration with seven universities to develop it, and it had a very clear measurable set of performance metrics that focused everyone across organizations and helped make decision-making easier.  For this last item, we are also (4) exploring academic interest in having an IBM-Researcher(s)-In-Residence at their universities, with the goal of accelerating collaborative research and achieving measurable grand challenge objectives.

Please let me know which of items 1 – 4 might be of most interest, or if your interests are in some other direction, and we can help guide you to the right IBMers to follow-up (for example, some universities already have data sets ready to be ingested, and investors interested in developing specific applications, so they are exploring the Watson Developer Cloud for Enterprise, as a path to get on site training and developer licenses more quickly).  Building cognitive systems to boost the performance of professionals, including research and teaching faculty at universities, is likely to be an important application area, and will have associated research grand challenges.

Jim Spohrer (spohrer@us.ibm.com)

Time to re-read “As We May Think” and “Augmenting Human Intellect”

It is time to re-read  Vannevar Bush’s “As We May Think” and Douglas Engelbart’s “Augmenting Human Intellect.”

Bush (1945) wrote: There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialization extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers—conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear.

Engelbart (1962) wrote: By “augmenting human intellect” we mean increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems.  Increased capability in this respect is taken to mean a mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insoluble.

What advances are on the verge of reshaping how we may think and augmenting our intellect?  How might these advances contribute to a Moore’s Law for service science and smart service systems?  What are the related challenges and opportunities to this vision?

Smart phones are an everyday reality (not quite as envisioned in the 1930s, but close enough)…

Tweet 1930s futurist

Regarding how we may think and augmenting human intellect, my colleagues and I are working on a virtual community called the Cognitive Systems Institute (plan to launch next revision in September 2014) with one important goal being the creation of POVs to boost government and venture funding for cognitive systems research and startup development.   “Cogs” (Cognitive Systems/Cognitive Assistants) for boosting regional economic development will be appearing at an accelerating pace.  Gartner predicts 10% of all computers will be learning by 2017.   Many industries and professions will be disrupted including higher education.   The gist of the vision for the Cognitive Systems Institute is to have university researchers building “Cogs” for every profession, for every region and in every language, and with student teams launching startups using the Watson Developer Cloud.  IBM’s BlueMix on SoftLayer is the beginning of the API Economy leading to Cognition as a Service, which access to much cognitive componentry including Natural Language Processing on OpenPower and Pattern Recognition on SyNAPSE.  “Cogs” become our “Cognitive Bulldozers in the Era of Big Data/Internet of Things” because “Cogs” know individuals (you) and know professions (your job), boosting productivity and creativity (how to measure productivity and creativity for many professions is a challenge as well – I recommend this book). “Cogs” learn, use language to interact more naturally, and have levels of confidence in what they know and do not know – learning, language, and levels.   The Forbes Global 2000 companies generate nearly a 1/3 of the GDP of the world in just 2000 publicly traded companies’ revenue…. they have combined about 100M employees.  If there was a “Cog” to help each of their employees be twice as productive and creative – you move the needle on the GDP of the planet.  People enjoy being more productive and creative so quality-of-life might also be improved, if done right.  “Cogs” may well be a key part of a Moore’s Law for Smart Service Systems.

For those interested in helping, after re-reading Bush (1945) and Engelbart (1962), a practical next step would be to read this:
https://www.ibmdw.net/watson/docs/5-steps-powered-watson-application/

IBM has developed enabling technologies and proof-points, and is investing billions to realize this vision imagined by Bush and Engelbart. Aligning government funding and venture funding will enable university faculty researchers and student entrepreneurs to play a major role in making this vision a reality in the coming decade.

Competing for Collaborators

Competing for collaborators is the new normal in a highly interconnected, innovation-driven global economy.

Especially, when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of faculty and students to build startups on industry platforms.

Platforms (sometimes referred to as solution stacks, or HW/SW stacks) include Apple iPhone and Google Android.    IBM has platforms as well – including Watson, Big Data Analytics, and Smarter Planet platforms.  In the case of Watson, IBM is eager to encourage university start ups to compete to build “Cogs” (cognitive assistants with question answering abilities) on the Watson Developer Cloud, and join the Watson Ecosystem (see http://www.ibm.com/watson, as well as https://www.ibmdw.net/watson/docs/5-steps-powered-watson-application/).

Startups are key to regional economic development, and industry platforms can provide both a starting point and foundation for startups.

Industry is looking for top academic brand partners with courses that are reaching millions of entrepreneurial minded faculty and students globally with research based curriculum.  Industry would like one or two lectures in those courses to be geared towards teaching local/regional faculty and student teams about industry platforms, how to be certified as a developer on those platforms, how to develop business plans for startups that build on those platforms, etc.

The easy integration of industry content with globally available top academic brand partners’ courses is what is key.

The KPI from industry perspective is revenue and profit growth driven by successful startups reaching customers with valuable new offerings (in many cases service innovations – hence the connection to ISSIP, the International Society of Service Innovation).   The sustainable and viable business model is based on a small percentage of profits going to the cost of including the industry content in the global courses, and helping the newly minted startups be successful.

Competing for collaborators is the new normal, and easy integration of industry content into global available courses is key.

Most careers in the era of cognitive systems have not been invented yet

Jean Paul Jacob (IBM Research Emeritus) alerted me to this NYT article “Automation Alone Isn’t Killing Jobs” …

The author of the NYT article, Tyler Cowen, notes:

“Many other examples of automatable jobs are discussed in “The Second Machine Age,” a book by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, and in my own book, “Average Is Over.” The upshot is that machines are often filling in for our smarts, not just for our brawn — and this trend is likely to grow.”

I especially agree with this point from the NYT article:

“There are unlimited human wants, so there is always more work to be done. The economic theory of comparative advantage suggests that even unskilled workers can gain from selling their services, thereby liberating the more skilled workers for more productive tasks.”

Ricardo’s Law of Comparative Advantage is very profound  – and greatly appreciated in the global service science community.  The advantages of interaction seems to be mathematically built into the fabric of universe, and certainly society.  Not just productivity (via Ricardo, etc.) but also creativity/innovation is enhanced by diverse perspectives and interaction (MIT’s Thomas Malone in his Science article on collective intelligence, and recent formulations by Pentland at MIT –  https://service-science.info/archives/3486).  This topic will surely be discussed at the National Academies Keck Center in this NSF-sponsored workshop in conjunction with the UIDP – research priorities for service science.

I especially like the perspective in this blog post by @JosieHolford  http://t.co/zdlS8g875m — don’t ask kids what they want to be when they grow up (that is 20th Century thinking – implicit a job and profession), ask them what problems they want to work with others to solve (21st Century thinking – implicit a team and purposeful effort) – their type of career may not exist yet.

If the transition to the industrial age is any guide, most of the jobs and types of careers in the age of smart machines do not exist yet.  The era of cognitive systems is just beginning to dawn.

 

Recipes and Smart Service Systems with Cogs

How can a food truck become an example of a smart service system, known for creative new recipes?

Before explaining, consider recipes just a bit…

Recipes are new combinations and configurations of existing ingredients.  Some recipes are appealing, and stick around.

In his book “The Coming Prosperity: How Entrepreneurs Are Transforming The Global Economy” Phil Auerswald extends the notion of recipes in several interesting ways, including viewing entrepreneurs as people who bring new innovations to the world by seeking out new combinations and configurations of resources.

In “Technology: What It Is And How It Evolves,” Brian Arthur describes the evolution of technologies as new combinations and configurations of existing technologies, with occasional scientific discoveries expanding the list of ingredients.

Resource integrators are fundamental, and described in the Service-Dominat Logic literature of Vargo and Lusch.

In the emerging service science literature, built on the foundations of the S-D Logic worldview, service systems are defined as dynamic configurations of resources (people, technology, organizations, and information) interconnected by value propositions, for the purpose of value co-creation and capability co-elevation.  Service science is the study of the evolving ecology of nested, networked service systems entities, complex systems with capabilities, constraints, rights, and responsibilities.

Smart service systems are an emerging focus area for the National Science Foundation, and a first set of proposals are now under review.

As the era of cognitive computing and smart machines dawns, the people inside service systems will benefit from Cogs.  By boosting the productivity and creativity of people in roles in service systems, Cogs will lead to smarter service systems.

So how can a food truck become an example of a smart service system?

Nick Lavars explains it this way:

IBM has put its cognitive computing system in control of the menu at a food truck feeding attendees at this week’s SXSW festival and the appointment has resulted in some particularly imaginative dishes.

For its “Cognitive Cooking” project, IBM has enlisted the services of four prominent chefs to work with Watson, who is consulting a database of tens of thousands of recipes and ingredient combinations to conceive dishes that the regular foodie has probably never thought of.

“If you were to look inside the system that is running in the IBM cloud you would see a system that is trained on 35,000 different recipes, as if it was digesting a giant cookbook,” said Steve Abrams, Director of Watson Life at IBM. “From reading that cookbook it has learnt an awful lot about different ingredients that are often used in different cuisines, and the ingredients that are often paired together.”

So where is the world of Cogs and Smart Service Systems headed?  To get a glimpse of the answer, Ramez Naam has begun to articulate clearly some of the key issues.   The notion of “learning” that Naam begins to illuminate is a step in the right direction, especially when he remarks:

And, indeed, should Intel, or Google, or some other organization succeed in building a smarter-than-human AI, it won’t immediately be smarter than the entire set of humans and computers that built it, particularly when you consider all the contributors to the hardware it runs on, the advances in photolighography techniques and metallurgy required to get there, and so on. Those efforts have taken tens of thousands of minds, if not hundreds of thousands. The first smarter-than-human AI won’t come close to equaling them. And so, the first smarter-than-human mind won’t take over the world. But it may find itself with good job offers to join one of those organizations.

A grand challenge research problem in cognitive systems research and service science is to minimize the amount of energy, material , and time required to rebuild more and more capable systems (cognitive systems and service systems).   This could mean finding the optimal set of training data to boot-up a Cog that can assist a human in some particular job role (“how many recipes does a Cog need to read and understand before it can help a chef innovate?”).  Or it could mean finding the optimal population of Cogs to help a new Cog train up rapidly.   Or it could mean, how rapidly can one rebuild the entire societal infrastructure, and ecology of service system entities.  These are new fundamental problems in accelerated learning rates, for individuals in isolation (just data stream inputs), for individuals in a society of other entities, and for entire societal boot-ups.

In a few weeks a group of us will convene in Washington DC to develop a proposed research agenda for service science and innovation, with an eye towards how technology advances will enable smart service systems of the future.  Empowering the people in service systems to be more productive and creative with Cogs will surely be one of many topics for discussion.

In thinking about the jobs of the future and jobs in the age of smart machines, it is important to think about jobs where there is no end in sight of work to be done.   Scientists, artists, ethicists, entrepreneurs, explorers, coaches, and chefs are seven jobs that immediately spring to my mind.  Surely, there are many more.