Beware the evolving 'intelligent' web service! An integration architecture tactic to guard AI-first components

Intelligent services provide the power of AI to developers via simple RESTful API endpoints, abstracting away many complexities of machine learning. However, most of these intelligent services-such as computer vision-continually learn with time. When the internals within the abstracted 'black box' become hidden and evolve, pitfalls emerge in the robustness of applications that depend on these evolving services. Without adapting the way developers plan and construct projects reliant on intelligent services, significant gaps and risks result in both project planning and development. Therefore, how can software engineers best mitigate software evolution risk moving forward, thereby ensuring that their own applications maintain quality? Our proposal is an architectural tactic designed to improve intelligent service-dependent software robustness. The tactic involves creating an application-specific benchmark dataset baselined against an intelligent service, enabling evolutionary behaviour changes to be mitigated. A technical evaluation of our implementation of this architecture demonstrates how the tactic can identify 1,054 cases of substantial confidence evolution and 2,461 cases of substantial changes to response label sets using a dataset consisting of 331 images that evolve when sent to a service.

Interpreting Cloud Computer Vision Pain-Points: A Mining Study of Stack Overflow

Intelligent services are becoming increasingly more pervasive; application developers want to leverage the latest advances in areas such as computer vision to provide new services and products to users, and large technology firms enable this via RESTful APIs. While such APIs promise an easy-to-integrate on-demand machine intelligence, their current design, documentation and developer interface hides much of the underlying machine learning techniques that power them. Such APIs look and feel like conventional APIs but abstract away data-driven probabilistic behaviour - the implications of a developer treating these APIs in the same way as other, traditional cloud services, such as cloud storage, is of concern. The objective of this study is to determine the various pain-points developers face when implementing systems that rely on the most mature of these intelligent services, specifically those that provide computer vision. We use Stack Overflow to mine indications of the frustrations that developers appear to face when using computer vision services, classifying their questions against two recent classification taxonomies (documentation-related and general questions). We find that, unlike mature fields like mobile development, there is a contrast in the types of questions asked by developers. These indicate a shallow understanding of the underlying technology that empower such systems. We discuss several implications of these findings via the lens of learning taxonomies to suggest how the software engineering community can improve these services and comment on the nature by which developers use them.

Losing Confidence in Quality: Unspoken Evolution of Computer Vision Services

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), such as computer vision, are now available as intelligent services and their accessibility and simplicity is compelling. Multiple vendors now offer this technology as cloud services and developers want to leverage these advances to provide value to end-users. However, there is no firm investigation into the maintenance and evolution risks arising from use of these intelligent services; in particular, their behavioural consistency and transparency of their functionality. We evaluated the responses of three different intelligent services (specifically computer vision) over 11 months using 3 different data sets, verifying responses against the respective documentation and assessing evolution risk. We found that there are: (1) inconsistencies in how these services behave; (2) evolution risk in the responses; and (3) a lack of clear communication that documents these risks and inconsistencies. We propose a set of recommendations to both developers and intelligent service providers to inform risk and assist maintainability.