Talk:VITAL (machine learning software)

Maintenance tags and infobox fields added on 1 May 2020

Below are my comments about the infobox fields and the maintenance tags added to the article by Ms4263nyu (talk · contribs):

1. An infobox was added. The infobox contains five fields that say "Unknown", one field that says the "Initial release" is "no", and one field that says the "Developer" is "Deep Knowledge Ventures". This does not provide useful information to the reader. The infobox fields that say "Unknown" or "no" should be removed. From the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Consistency between infoboxes, "If a parameter is not applicable, or no information is available, it should be left blank, and the template coded to selectively hide information or provide default values for parameters that are not defined."
2. A {{Notability}} tag was added. An {{Expert needed}} tag was added which says: "The article is about an hoax of an allegedly machine learning software developed by a venture capital. The article doesn't meet any of the WP:NSOFT criteria. In addition the software was neither patented, nor released, it's not even clear who coded it and in which programming language. Should the article be merged in machine learning controversies? or is it an hoax?" My response:
   1. The article is about a machine learning software program whose appointment to a company's board of directors was considered by commentators to be a publicity stunt. Multiple reliable sources verify this. This article is not a hoax.
   2. A merge to machine learning controversies would be undue weight.
   3. Wikipedia:Notability (software) is an essay. Per the policy Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus, there is no requirement for an article to comply with an essay.
   4. VITAL is notable not because it's a software program but because it's a publicity stunt. VITAL complies with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over a period of years. The sources include journals and books published in multiple countries.
3. A {{Clarify}} tag was added with the reason, "Can you clarify if the software was patented? Released? in which code was written?" The reliable sources do not provide information about whether the software was patented, when it was released, and in which code it was written. The article therefore cannot include this information.

   The {{Clarify}} tag links to Wikipedia:Please clarify, which says, "The aim of this page is to describe ways to clarify text or request such clarification. There are inline cleanup tags to flag specific wording that is likely to be confusing to the average reader." The reason listed in the tag is not because the "specific wording" is "likely to be confusing to the average reader", so this tag is not applicable.

   The tag should be removed because it is not applicable and because sources do not verify the information requested.

4. A {{Misquoted}} tag was added to the article text, "Deep Knowledge Ventures is a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm that funds biotechnology companies that develop drugs for aging-associated diseases and regenerative medicine", which is sourced to this book:

   Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2015). Dean, Jodi; Hands, Joss; Jordan, Tim (eds.). Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. London: Pluto Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-7453-3404-2.

   The book says, "On 13 May 2014, a press release from Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund specializing in biotechnology, age-related disease drugs and regenerative medicine projects, announced that it ‘formally acknowledges VITAL, a crucial Artificial Intelligence instrument for investment decision-making, as an equal member of its Board of Directors’."

   How is the text misquoted?

5. An {{Advert inline}} tag was added to the article text, "VITAL processed an extensive collection of data to predict the investment opportunities likely to be the most lucrative". The text is sourced to an article in the peer-reviewed journal Critical Times:

   Colberg, David (2019). "Coding Time". Critical Times. 2 (3). Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/26410478-7862517. ISSN 2641-0478. Archived from the original on 2020-04-29. Retrieved 2020-04-29.

   The source says, "VITAL, a product of Deep Knowledge Ventures, surveys very large tranches of data to project the most profitable investments likely as a consequence of the patterns revealed in the reviewed data."

   The text is an accurate paraphrase of the peer-reviewed source. I do not consider the inclusion of this sentence to be an advertisement.

6. A {{Better source needed}} tag was added to "It relies on over 50 parameters to generate its analysis" with the reason "the source is a press release".

   The information is sourced to The Nikkei:

   Burridge, Nicky (2017-05-10). "Artificial intelligence gets a seat in the boardroom: Hong Kong venture capitalist sees AI running Asian companies within 5 years". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

   The Nikkei article is not a press release. It is a high quality reliable source. The journalist interviewed a founder of the company but that does not make the source a "press release" or unusable for verifying information.

   The Nikkei contains these two sentences that verify the material, "DKV then acquired a team of specialists in the analysis of big data -- large data sets that can be analyzed by computers to reveal patterns. The team created Vital, the first artificial intelligence system for biotech investment analysis, enabling the fund to identify more than 50 parameters that were critical for assessing risk factors."

7. An {{Advert inline}} tag was added to the article text, "VITAL supported investing in Insilico Medicine". I do not consider this text to be promotional language.
8. An {{Advert inline}} tag was added to the article text, "It also supported investing in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which uses the OncoFinder algorithm to choose and appraise cancer treatments." I do not consider this text to be promotional language.
9. A {{Clarify}} tag was added with the reason, "can you clarify who and for how long used this software beyond the 5 minutes of celebrity ?" The reliable sources do not provide information about how long the software was used. The article therefore cannot include this information. The reliable sources note that Deep Knowledge Ventures used the software, and the article already includes this information.

   The {{Clarify}} tag links to Wikipedia:Please clarify, which says, "The aim of this page is to describe ways to clarify text or request such clarification. There are inline cleanup tags to flag specific wording that is likely to be confusing to the average reader." The reason listed in the tag is not because the "specific wording" is "likely to be confusing to the average reader", so this tag is not applicable.

   The tag should be removed because it is not applicable and because sources do not verify the information requested.

Cunard (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank Cunard about this! As you know I am very in favor to create an article about this imaginary software, at least as counter narrative to the PR stunt. I am not sure it's just a "publicity stunt" as you claimed, as no one can proved the real existence of this software. I am sure a software expert can help us. I am definitely not a software expert. I am a media ethicist and I deal with fake news. Here the problem, we need to be very careful on how to frame the article. But why not doing it?!? Especially after DKV tried to vandalize the article we worked on. Here my reply to your points:

1. Can you quote an independent source that is able to prove the real existence of the software? they all rely on the press statement of DKV or interview of the founder.
2. No one claimed the essay is compulsive. But it contains very good suggestions, especially for those of us who are not software expert.
3. I read "{{Clarify}} to mark individual phrases or sentences". However, thank you for having clarified that the software was never patented. I checked the register of patents and it doesn't result. So here the point, did ever existed this software? I think the article should clarify if the software ever existed.
4. Misquoted because as we already discussed in [1]the book doesn't use primary sources, it simply quotes BBC (2014) and Fontaine (2014). So it is not intellectually honest to attribute to authors what they just quoted. here the references used in the book: 1) Fontaine, Jessica (2014) ‘Aging Analytics UK Launches VITAL, a Predictive Investment Tool For the Regenerative Medicine Sector’, Cadogan Consulting Group, 13 May, http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/nonMember/docs/05_14_ AgingAnalytics.pdf; 2) BBC (2014) ‘Algorithm appointed board director’, 16 May, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27426942
5. Same here, third source: the source is Wile, Rob. “A Venture Capital Firm Just Named an Algorithm to Its Board of Directors—Here's What It Actually Does.” Business Insider, May 13, 2014. www.businessinsider.com/vital-named-to-board-2014-5.
   1. Second, you are contradicting yourself. You just said that this article is abut a "publicity stunt" and now we pass the narrative that this pseudo-algorithm was able to make investment. Is it or not a stunt? If yes, let's make clear what it the stunt. Maybe the conditional tense (Hypothetical Conditional of type 3) can be used.
6. As you wrote, the article is based on an interview with the founder of the Venture Capital, I suggested that a better source can be used to verify the reliability of the facts we are describing.
7. If it's a stunt, then we are just promoting the investment of a venture capital in a biotech company. It is publicity, we can just write "VITAL supported investing in a biotech company", there is no need to further promote the investments of a VC.
8. See above
9. I read {{Clarify}} is the that to flag unclear text. If there is no source available to provide this information, let's indeed complete the sentence and write that it remains unclear for how long the software have been used. maybe another editor can find this information. Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Proprietary software says that such software can be "private, internal software". VITAL is "private, internal software". For an independent reliable source not to "rely on the press statement of DKV or interview of the founder" to prove VITAL's existence, the source's author would need to have direct access to VITAL. But only Deep Knowledge Ventures has access to it. No reliable sources have said Deep Knowledge Ventures gave them access to the software. This is expected since "private, internal software" is considered a trade secret.

   All reliable sources have written news articles, journal articles, and books with the belief that the software exists even when they think appointing VITAL to a board is "publicity hype" or a "stunt". Therefore, Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources and say the software exists. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors."

2. The essay could be useful for an article about a software. But there is no requirement to follow it, so maintenance tags should not be added saying the article "doesn't meet any of the WP:NSOFT criteria".
3. I did not say the software was not patented. I said no reliable sources have discussed whether the software was patented.
4. The book is a tertiary source since it relies on material from secondary sources like BBC and from primary sources. Regarding "it is not intellectually honest to attribute to authors what they just quoted", a tertiary source quoting from secondary sources is not intellectually dishonest. The {{Misquoted}} tag does not apply.
5. Reliable sources say the software is a publicity stunt and say that the company said it recommended two software investments. Both assertions can be true and not contradictory.
6. That an article contains interview material does not make it unusable as a source. There are no other source that discusses this specific information about VITAL relying on "over 50 parameters to generate its analysis". No better source can be found and the existing source is fine so the tag should be removed.
7. Multiple reliable sources have discussed the two companies that Deep Knowledge Ventures said VITAL supported investing in. The content provides additional background about VITAL to readers. I don't consider it promotional to include two sentences discussing the investments that VITAL supported investing in.
8. Same as above.
9. Regarding "it remains unclear for how long the software have been used", no reliable source says this, so it would be unsourced and undue weight for this to be mentioned in the article. Information about how long the software was used (or that it is unclear how long it is used) should be left out.

Cunard (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Existence of VITAL Software

This article was created using the content of an AfD article venture capital (see also related AfD discussion).

The article claims that a venture capital (not a software house) created a software that apparently no one never used and which has not been patented. The article defines VITAL (algo) a 'publicity stunt', I wonder to what extent an encyclopedia should spread PR stunts promoting the activities of a bogus Venture Capital.

Last not least, I would appreciate if anyone can help find sources proving the real existence of the software. I was unsucesfull to verify the existence of this software. I was not even able to identify in which language the software was coded, or when it was released. I made multiple searches and I couldn't find any patent registrations related to this 'revolutionary' software. The existing references always point to the press statement realesed by Deep Knowledge Ventures.

Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

New sources on Vital

The article should include ans start from the latest sources published in 2019

• Corporate Management in the Age of AI. Columbia Business Law Review

"In 2014, a Hong Kong based venture capital firm, Deep Knowledge Ventures, thrust us into a new age of corporate management. The firm announced in a press release that it “appointed VITAL, a machine learning program capable of making investment recommendations in the life science sector, to its board.”1 Two years later, Finnish IT company Tieto informed the public that it “appointed Artificial Intelligence as a member of the leadership team of its new data-driven businesses unit.”2 Similarly, in early 2018, the CEO of California-based software provider SalesForce revealed that he brings an artificial intelligence machine named “Einstein” to weekly staff meetings. He further noted that he asks Einstein to comment on proposals under discussion, describing how on one occasion the machine questioned whether a particular executive “is going to make their number" from Corporate Management in the Age of AI. Columbia Business Law Review

"Several media outlets reacted promptly, with4 one newspaper even asking its readers whether they would “take orders from a robot.”5 In the case of VITAL, it turned out that initial reports were technically incorrect, given that Hong Kong law does not allow non-human entities to serve on boards.6 The phenomenon was also exaggerated, as Deep Knowledge Ventures later acknowledged that VITAL’s role “was a little different from that of human directors,” noting that the firm treats the software “as a member of our board with observer status” on the basis of an agreement that the board “would not make positive investment decisions without corroboration by VITAL.”7 As one commentator noted, this arrangement was no different from practices at other financial companies that use large data searches to survey markets and generate suggestions for boards or managers.8" from Corporate Management in the Age of AI. Columbia Business Law Review

• Article from the New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/17/yuval-noah-harari-gives-the-really-big-picture

"We discussed the tall tales that occasionally appear in his writing. In “Homo Deus,” Harari writes that, in 2014, a Hong Kong venture-capital firm “broke new ground by appointing an algorithm named vital to its board.” A footnote provides a link to an online article, which makes clear that, in fact, there had been no such board appointment, and that the press release announcing it was a lure for “gullible” outlets. When I asked Harari if he’d accidentally led readers into believing a fiction, he appeared untroubled, arguing that the book’s larger point about A.I. encroachment still held.

I don't mind to include them. it's in my todo list --Postconfused (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Vital - Reliable sources (Noticeboard)

there is a RfC related to the sources used in the present article on Noticeboard#Press_Releases --Postconfused (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)