Man vs. Machine: Will Watson Win Jeopardy?
Poll
 | 5 votes (25%) | ||
| | 3 votes (15%) | ||
| | 1 vote (5%) | ||
| | 1 vote (5%) | ||
| | 3 votes (15%) | ||
| | 4 votes (20%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (5%) | ||
| | 2 votes (10%) |
20 members have voted
February 10th, 2011 at 7:33:27 AM
permalink
This Monday-Wednesday, February 14-16 2011, the IBM supercomputer Watson will play again Jeopardy! superplayers Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter in a 3-day match.
Ken Jennings won 74 games of Jeopardy, earning over $2,000,000. He placed 2nd in the Ultimate Jeopardy! Tournament, losing to Brad Rutter. He also won $500,000 on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?", and won the championship title on Grand Slam in 2007.
Brad Rutter has never lost a match on Jeopardy!, and as a 5-time undefeated champion, has gained 3 Jeopardy! titles: 2001 Tournament of Champions winner, Million Dollar Masters Tournament winner, and Ultimate Tournament of Champions winner.
Watson is a supercomputer built by IBM. It will not have Internet connectivity during the match; Everything it knows is stored in its memory or storage. It will take the natural language clues Alex Trebek reads, and formulate a ranked list of possible responses. A mechanical piston will "buzz in" when Watson is ready to answer. It has won and lost against human opponents in live practice games (record unknown).
Survey question above: Who will win? Man or machine? Will it be a blowout, or a close match?
Ken Jennings won 74 games of Jeopardy, earning over $2,000,000. He placed 2nd in the Ultimate Jeopardy! Tournament, losing to Brad Rutter. He also won $500,000 on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?", and won the championship title on Grand Slam in 2007.
Brad Rutter has never lost a match on Jeopardy!, and as a 5-time undefeated champion, has gained 3 Jeopardy! titles: 2001 Tournament of Champions winner, Million Dollar Masters Tournament winner, and Ultimate Tournament of Champions winner.
Watson is a supercomputer built by IBM. It will not have Internet connectivity during the match; Everything it knows is stored in its memory or storage. It will take the natural language clues Alex Trebek reads, and formulate a ranked list of possible responses. A mechanical piston will "buzz in" when Watson is ready to answer. It has won and lost against human opponents in live practice games (record unknown).
Survey question above: Who will win? Man or machine? Will it be a blowout, or a close match?
-Dween!
February 10th, 2011 at 8:42:57 AM
permalink
Stuxnet! :P
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 10th, 2011 at 8:46:37 AM
permalink
I watched the 10pm Nova on this last night. I'm looking forward to seeing the matchup. According to all of the matches that Watson has played, I think Watson will have to get lucky to beat the two greatest players in Jeopardy, but it is capable of beating most players. It really depends on how Watson handles the questions and figuring out how to interpret the questions.
4 years of development by IBM for this. I think however that it has many real world applications.
4 years of development by IBM for this. I think however that it has many real world applications.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 10th, 2011 at 9:10:26 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboIt really depends on how Watson handles the questions and figuring out how to interpret the questions.
The answers. Contestants ask the questions. That's jeopardy's gimmick, born, according to legend, out fo the 50's game show scandals.
Quote:4 years of development by IBM for this. I think however that it has many real world applications.
It should. The answers given on jeporady are often missleading and/or not clearly stated. A computer that can interpret those correctly might serve to take verbal orders from users. Ok, just now I've ahd about 4 hours of sleep and one long drive, minus a bad breakfast, so I can't think of any really useful aplication.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 10th, 2011 at 9:37:45 AM
permalink
My $ on Watson. The programmers have noted that there are particular types of categories that Watson will have trouble with. I wonder if any of those (intentionally or not) will show up.
FWIW I'll be proving my ignorance by taking the online Jeopardy test tonight. 50 questions (yes, questions) and 15 seconds each. 35 correct is passing. I figure I'll get about 20 :)
FWIW I'll be proving my ignorance by taking the online Jeopardy test tonight. 50 questions (yes, questions) and 15 seconds each. 35 correct is passing. I figure I'll get about 20 :)
February 10th, 2011 at 11:00:32 AM
permalink
My friend was on the Nova show last night for about five seconds. He was also on Jeopardy and won over $100,000.
By the way, as I told the Wizard at his coffee, I was on Jeopardy, so if anyone has any questions about the show, feel free to ask me.
By the way, as I told the Wizard at his coffee, I was on Jeopardy, so if anyone has any questions about the show, feel free to ask me.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
February 10th, 2011 at 1:58:12 PM
permalink
Is Trebek the smug pompous Canadian I think he is? :)
I love those SNL Jeopardy skits with Will Ferrell, et al
I love those SNL Jeopardy skits with Will Ferrell, et al
February 10th, 2011 at 2:43:14 PM
permalink
He is actually a real nice guy off camera. He has a ease of interacting with people, which is a good skill to have especially on those interview segments. The character on SNL is very funny, but nothing like him, really. Probably why it's funny.
He does like to get all the pronunciations right and projects a bit of smugness sometimes, but he does his job really well.
He does like to get all the pronunciations right and projects a bit of smugness sometimes, but he does his job really well.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
February 12th, 2011 at 3:44:00 PM
permalink
Art Flemming had the answers. I just couldn't get the questions right...
The difference between zero and the smallest possible number? It doesn't matter; once you cross that edge, it might as well be the difference between zero and 1.
The difference between infinity and reality? They are mutually exclusive.
February 14th, 2011 at 4:40:36 AM
permalink
Giving this thread a bump, as the competition begins tonight.
As of now, there are 10 votes, and it is split 50/50, human victory vs. computer victory.
As of now, there are 10 votes, and it is split 50/50, human victory vs. computer victory.
-Dween!
February 14th, 2011 at 3:43:47 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysMy friend was on the Nova show last night for about five seconds. He was also on Jeopardy and won over $100,000.
By the way, as I told the Wizard at his coffee, I was on Jeopardy, so if anyone has any questions about the show, feel free to ask me.
When the first to buzz in answers incorrectly, how is the next to buzz in decided? Is it similar to the first buzz in, where the players must wait for Trebek to read the entire question before the judges make the buzzers, "live"?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
February 14th, 2011 at 5:10:59 PM
permalink
Being on the east coast, I just finished watching this... and without giving too much away for the west-coasters who may not have seen it yet, am I the only one who found the first episode suspicious?
February 14th, 2011 at 5:57:55 PM
permalink
I thought so at first, but then I realized that what happened made sense. (SPOILER ALERT) Watson did very well with the easier questions early on, but started to falter a bit when they got to the higher-value ones. Since the $800 and $1000 clues are usually trickier and involve more wordplay and reasoning skills, it makes sense that a computer would have more trouble with them.
"I believe I've passed the age/of consciousness and righteous rage/I've found that just surviving was a noble fight...
I once believed in causes too/I had my pointless point of view/And life went on no matter who was wrong or right..." --Billy Joel
February 14th, 2011 at 6:24:35 PM
permalink
I completely agree.
After the first commercial break during the questions I was happy as I was the only one on here that voted for Watson to crush the humans. As the questions got tougher you could see Watson was having trouble with deciphering some of the reasoning. Overall I'm still impressed with his intelligence and think the next two days will be interesting.
After the first commercial break during the questions I was happy as I was the only one on here that voted for Watson to crush the humans. As the questions got tougher you could see Watson was having trouble with deciphering some of the reasoning. Overall I'm still impressed with his intelligence and think the next two days will be interesting.
February 14th, 2011 at 6:29:40 PM
permalink
Quote: OneAngryDwarfI thought so at first, but then I realized that what happened made sense. (SPOILER ALERT) Watson did very well with the easier questions early on, but started to falter a bit when they got to the higher-value ones. Since the $800 and $1000 clues are usually trickier and involve more wordplay and reasoning skills, it makes sense that a computer would have more trouble with them.
There were more things than just that which made me think that every second of it was planned and/or scripted:
1. Near the beginning it sounded like the whole thing was an elaborate advertisement for IBM's Power7 family of servers, as opposed to an interesting project by some creative and ambitious people who happen to work for IBM.
2. On Watson's first pick he conveniently chose the square that just happened to be the Daily Double.
3. They made it seem like he was going to wipe the floor with the humans, then in the last few questions he ends up tied with one of the humans... again, so convenient that it seemed like an intentional ploy to gain viewers and ratings.
I don't know exactly what I was expecting, but I guess it makes sense that it's all just an advertisement for IBM. As a programmer who understands the logical difficulties behind the code that runs Watson, I am probably looking at the situation differently than non-programmers.
February 14th, 2011 at 6:39:21 PM
permalink
Quote: JBNear the beginning it sounded like the whole thing was an elaborate advertisement for IBM's Power7 family of servers, as opposed to an interesting project by some creative and ambitious people who happen to work for IBM.
I don't know that that is surprising though. Getting a plug in for IBM.
Sanitized for Your Protection
February 14th, 2011 at 6:41:44 PM
permalink
Quote: JBThere were more things than just that which made me think that every second of it was planned and/or scripted:
2. On Watson's first pick he conveniently chose the square that just happened to be the Daily Double.
Very suspicious. After he chose the Daily Double, he started picking $200 questions. My wife and I both agreed that it seemed like something was up.
February 14th, 2011 at 6:42:59 PM
permalink
Quote: JB
2. On Watson's first pick he conveniently chose the square that just happened to be the Daily Double.
My wife and I did turn to each other and called 'bullshit' at the same time on that one. But it could just be chance, as Watson only had $400 at the time and it wouldn't make sense to choose the 'golden ticket' right away.
February 14th, 2011 at 7:01:23 PM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleVery suspicious. After he chose the Daily Double, he started picking $200 questions. My wife and I both agreed that it seemed like something was up.
Watson was given past played games to analyze. I suppose a computer can arrive at some unusual strategies given any particular circumstances.
Sanitized for Your Protection
February 14th, 2011 at 7:27:01 PM
permalink
Quote: cellardoorMy wife and I did turn to each other and called 'bullshit' at the same time on that one. But it could just be chance, as Watson only had $400 at the time and it wouldn't make sense to choose the 'golden ticket' right away.
under full disclosure, I work for IBM, but I have nothing to do with Watson.
I don't think there is anything deceptive going on. I believe Watson would be programmed to try and take the daily double out of play as soon as possible, since the daily double could radically change the game at a later point. Given that, everyone knows the daily double is never found under the 200 answer, and is rarely found under the 400 answer. Also, if you are playing to minimize the damage your opponent can do, and that would be the strategy to take with these two champions, you would pick the 800 and 1000 questions first, so there would be a greater chance that the category link would not quite be understood yet.
It seems old hat now, but remember back when IBM's Deep Blue took on Kasparov? Everyone said a computer could not possibly take on a master grand champion, or whatever the top players are called. When Deep Blue went toe to toe with Kasparov the rumor was rampant that Kasparov was throwing the matches. It wasn't true back then, and I don't believe it is true that this contest is fixed either. As with most corporations, we have ethics fed to us all the time, and fixing this contest for good TV, or to promote IBM, would be unethical to the utmost. I think it is a fair contest.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
February 14th, 2011 at 8:26:53 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsAs with most corporations, we have ethics fed to us all the time, and fixing this contest for good TV, or to promote IBM, would be unethical to the utmost. I think it is a fair contest.
I meant to put it on my post but I forgot. I do think the game is being played fair but I thought it was funny when Watson picked the Daily Double first.
February 14th, 2011 at 8:52:53 PM
permalink
I have to disagree that this episode played as a long IBM commercial for its Power7 servers. I am very curious about a computer that thinks, and I appreciated the long explanation. Watson is a work-in-progress. It's taken 3 years to get to this point where IBM can challenge human brains in a speed assessment, think of where Watson could be in another three. If you have access to such a computer, you can get an instant second-opinion when you have a medical problem, or advice on beating the stock market. Put Watson in a body, and you have an android. I suppose that brings up the question of "How close are we to the Terminator movies?" Ten years? Twenty?
What better venue than Jeopardy to showcase this new technology? Make it fun!
What better venue than Jeopardy to showcase this new technology? Make it fun!
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
February 15th, 2011 at 12:26:48 AM
permalink
Quote: zippyboy. I suppose that brings up the question of "How close are we to the Terminator movies?" Ten years? Twenty?
What better venue than Jeopardy to showcase this new technology? Make it fun!
I thought you were going to say: What better venue than Jeopardy to showcase Armegeddon, or the end of us all or something.
I guess in the scenario of all things odd, THE END OF MANKIND might as well start with a gameshow. While we're all watching space for the killer comet, it's Alex Trebeck who's ushering in our doomsday machine.
Sanitized for Your Protection
February 15th, 2011 at 1:36:10 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineWhile we're all watching space for the killer comet, it's Alex Trebeck who's ushering in our doomsday machine.
He lived in an icy lair (Canada), had a simple yet effective disguise (mustache) and has a twin (Will Ferrell, SNL). Gadzooks, rxwine, you may be on to something!
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
February 15th, 2011 at 2:48:59 AM
permalink
my 2 cents, having however missed round one:
*you guys are cracking me up with the Trebeck/Terminator stuff. I am in fact going to try to see if I can study Trebeck further, looking for android-like mannerisms.
*Having played computers for years at various things, as have many of us, one ugly thing always raises its head: the computer cheating. This is justifiable, as they are acknowledged to "cheat" as a matter of design in many cases; and then there was the claim Deep Blue was cheating, which I bought; I think IBM was at least not transparent about the programming if not "unethical". I have a blog post on all that. Maybe because of this known and alleged cheating, it was guaranteed to come up instantly here it seems. As it did in our "dice wars" phase.
PS: I finally decided the dice wars bots were not cheating, but we were reacting to being "fooled by randomness" as that guy put it in the title of his book.
*you guys are cracking me up with the Trebeck/Terminator stuff. I am in fact going to try to see if I can study Trebeck further, looking for android-like mannerisms.
*Having played computers for years at various things, as have many of us, one ugly thing always raises its head: the computer cheating. This is justifiable, as they are acknowledged to "cheat" as a matter of design in many cases; and then there was the claim Deep Blue was cheating, which I bought; I think IBM was at least not transparent about the programming if not "unethical". I have a blog post on all that. Maybe because of this known and alleged cheating, it was guaranteed to come up instantly here it seems. As it did in our "dice wars" phase.
PS: I finally decided the dice wars bots were not cheating, but we were reacting to being "fooled by randomness" as that guy put it in the title of his book.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
February 15th, 2011 at 4:51:27 AM
permalink
I agree with RaleighCraps; Watson's clue-picking strategies are pretty smart.
Daily Doubles tend to appear in the $800 or $1000 spots, with $600 coming in third. There have been very rare times they've shown up in the $400 spot, but never to my knowledge at $200. He went to the first category on the board, perhaps by chance, and started at $800. Dumb luck brought up the Daily Double. Seems like a smart move to try to find it before anyone else.
Watson also jumped from category to category. A few human players have used this strategy to throw off their opponents, to make them have to change gears in their thought process more often. There is no rule that says you have to go $200 to $1000 straight down a category, but it makes clues go down smooth, from easy to hard all in the same topic.
I believe in the NOVA special that they said Watson will be getting the correct response fed to him AFTER it is given, so if he is confused about what kind of response to give in a category, he can look at what the other correct questions have been to determine what they are looking for. I find it on the unfair side that Watson is penalized for giving the same WRONG response someone else gave, because he can't hear them. Then again, I think I've seen human players do that inadvertently.
Daily Doubles tend to appear in the $800 or $1000 spots, with $600 coming in third. There have been very rare times they've shown up in the $400 spot, but never to my knowledge at $200. He went to the first category on the board, perhaps by chance, and started at $800. Dumb luck brought up the Daily Double. Seems like a smart move to try to find it before anyone else.
Watson also jumped from category to category. A few human players have used this strategy to throw off their opponents, to make them have to change gears in their thought process more often. There is no rule that says you have to go $200 to $1000 straight down a category, but it makes clues go down smooth, from easy to hard all in the same topic.
I believe in the NOVA special that they said Watson will be getting the correct response fed to him AFTER it is given, so if he is confused about what kind of response to give in a category, he can look at what the other correct questions have been to determine what they are looking for. I find it on the unfair side that Watson is penalized for giving the same WRONG response someone else gave, because he can't hear them. Then again, I think I've seen human players do that inadvertently.
-Dween!
February 15th, 2011 at 7:46:52 AM
permalink
So who won the game?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 15th, 2011 at 9:57:06 AM
permalink
As others have noted, I think Watson's strategy was to try to find the daily double early, thus minimizing it's value since Watson cannot attempt an answer if someone else picks the daily double. (We shall see if Watson repeats this strategy in Double Jeopardy and in Game 2)
I also thought it was good strategy for Watson to continually change categories to try and keep the human opponents from getting into a groove in any given category format.
I also thought it was good strategy for Watson to continually change categories to try and keep the human opponents from getting into a groove in any given category format.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:32:27 AM
permalink
Most of the old guys here remember the "Turing test" proposed by Alan Turing 60 years ago. His test was simply could a computer fool the "subject person' in a blind test where you conduct a conversation. The subject has to guess if the responder is human or a computer.
Judging by most blog sites, that should be fairly easy today.
Judging by most blog sites, that should be fairly easy today.
February 15th, 2011 at 10:55:48 AM
permalink
On the contrary, the Turing test remains a very formidible challenge.Quote: pacomartinMost of the old guys here remember the "Turing test" proposed by Alan Turing 60 years ago. His test was simply could a computer fool the "subject person' in a blind test where you conduct a conversation. The subject has to guess if the responder is human or a computer.
Judging by most blog sites, that should be fairly easy today.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:11:11 AM
permalink
I don't like how slow the game seems to be going. Trebek is reading the questions more slowly and carefully than he usually does, which would be a huge advantage for timing purposes even if it were three humans playing. I usually hang out wiith the game show crowd, and the consensus has always been the most important factor in Jeopardy! success is timing the buzzer since most contestants are fairly equally intelligent. I wonder how Watson would be faring at typical game speed.
Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
Preparing for a fight about your bad decision is not as smart as making a good decision.
February 15th, 2011 at 11:24:30 AM
permalink
I found the show to run a bit slow last night, but part of that is for ratings purposes. It's February sweeps time, and all of the syndicated stations stand to pull in alot more advertising dollars with Jeopardy at a higher rating.
I think that given that IBM had a large team of paid people to build the computer, it's fair for them to get some free advertising out of the deal. Many people of course who didn't see the Nova program last week (which would be the great majority of viewers) would want to know about how Watson was programmed, that it's not connected to the internet, and how much data was stored in the system. After all, TV is not free.
Finally, certainly, the chinks in Watson's armor showed up, especially in the decades category when on several occasions, its top answer was a year and not a decade. I also loved the fact that it showed its top three questions.
I think Trebek was told to slow down as Watson is sent a text when the question is read and that it should have a fair amount of time to "compute" the answer.
Great drama.
I think that given that IBM had a large team of paid people to build the computer, it's fair for them to get some free advertising out of the deal. Many people of course who didn't see the Nova program last week (which would be the great majority of viewers) would want to know about how Watson was programmed, that it's not connected to the internet, and how much data was stored in the system. After all, TV is not free.
Finally, certainly, the chinks in Watson's armor showed up, especially in the decades category when on several occasions, its top answer was a year and not a decade. I also loved the fact that it showed its top three questions.
I think Trebek was told to slow down as Watson is sent a text when the question is read and that it should have a fair amount of time to "compute" the answer.
Great drama.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 15th, 2011 at 4:49:02 PM
permalink
Okay, having just watched the Double Jeopardy round of game 1, and the Final Jeopardy of game 1, I have mixed feelings. Watson got the first question right, and then picked the exact same spot as last night, the 4th row of column 1 (1600 in DJ). He then proceeded to pick other 4th row and 3rd row spots until he hit the daily doubles. This is the exact strategy I was describing last night, so I stand by my comments that this is above board, and is just the programmed strategy.
On the point of the questions being read more slowly than usual. This could be. I hadn't noticed myself, but if it were true, this would be a bit of an advantage to Watson, although I don't think as much as you may think. Most of the great players ring in as soon as they are permitted, many times before they even know the answer for certain. They are relying on their knowledge of the category, and trust they can pull out the correct answer as soon as they finish reading the clue.
For those that don't know, I believe Wed night will be another complete Jeopardy game, played as normal, but the total from Game 1 will be added to the total of Game 2 to determine the overall winner.
SPOILER ALERT - Do not read the last sentence as it pertains to Final Jeopardy.............
I did find the Final Jeopardy for Game 1 to be a bit absurd. First is the wager that Watson makes, and then second is the answer given. Watson's answer wasn't even a US city! There is no way that answer should have even been in the possible list of correct answers. That part does seem to be a bit contrived.
On the point of the questions being read more slowly than usual. This could be. I hadn't noticed myself, but if it were true, this would be a bit of an advantage to Watson, although I don't think as much as you may think. Most of the great players ring in as soon as they are permitted, many times before they even know the answer for certain. They are relying on their knowledge of the category, and trust they can pull out the correct answer as soon as they finish reading the clue.
For those that don't know, I believe Wed night will be another complete Jeopardy game, played as normal, but the total from Game 1 will be added to the total of Game 2 to determine the overall winner.
SPOILER ALERT - Do not read the last sentence as it pertains to Final Jeopardy.............
I did find the Final Jeopardy for Game 1 to be a bit absurd. First is the wager that Watson makes, and then second is the answer given. Watson's answer wasn't even a US city! There is no way that answer should have even been in the possible list of correct answers. That part does seem to be a bit contrived.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
February 15th, 2011 at 5:31:09 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps
I did find the Final Jeopardy for Game 1 to be a bit absurd. First is the wager that Watson makes, and then second is the answer given. Watson's answer wasn't even a US city! There is no way that answer should have even been in the possible list of correct answers. That part does seem to be a bit contrived.
I'm wondering if Watson is able to incorporate the 'rules' of the category properly in order to narrow down answers. I am not knowledgeable at all of the programming that does into it though. The mention of a US city was not mentioned in the answer, only in the category. In some other categories today, like "Church" and "State", Watson's preferred question had either "church" or "state" in them but the other two questions did not.
His Daily Double wager amounts were rather odd as well, I couldn't get the logic behind that.
Overall it looks like my original guess of Watson easily winning is looking good.
February 15th, 2011 at 5:43:06 PM
permalink
It uses multiple algorithms to parse millions of pages, so if it weights in one direction or another it could narrow down missing an entire category through misinterpretation of the question. (I suppose).
Sanitized for Your Protection
February 15th, 2011 at 6:13:06 PM
permalink
It would be fun to be in a room with Watson, and have access to it all day. But I still wouldn't want it as my barber, as I fear it might arbitrarily decide to cut my head off at some point. (head of lettuce or head of hair, did you say, chop chop) Such is still the limits of AI.
Sanitized for Your Protection
February 15th, 2011 at 11:38:20 PM
permalink
After seeing two episodes, IF this is real, and I have no reason to think it's not real, a computer that can think is both fascinating and frightening. This is like a movie plot from 1973 or something, except we're living it now. It's happening now. I can't be the only one who's freaked out by the implications, right? We are all already lazy enough now with our desk jobs and our drives to the store for more processed crapfood. What happens when we totally give in to computer decisions and let them run our lives? What if computers decide we're not worth the energy to keep alive?
Watson's already clearly faster on the button than the humans. The next step would be next year when Watson 2012 can actually hear the answers by Trebek, and hear the wrong questions of other contestants. The producers need to come up with more answers that are more punny, innuendo, double-speak, mixing languages, etc.
The audience for this Jeopardy segment seems to be full of IBM programmers proud of their creation. I guess technology needs to move forward, but this seems like the beginning of the end to me.
Watson's already clearly faster on the button than the humans. The next step would be next year when Watson 2012 can actually hear the answers by Trebek, and hear the wrong questions of other contestants. The producers need to come up with more answers that are more punny, innuendo, double-speak, mixing languages, etc.
The audience for this Jeopardy segment seems to be full of IBM programmers proud of their creation. I guess technology needs to move forward, but this seems like the beginning of the end to me.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
February 16th, 2011 at 12:25:44 AM
permalink
Frightening? Or even impressive - really? All it's really doing is improved Internet Search, in its massive database stored on high-speed arrays. A decade ago (not two, two decades ago there was no Internet) most people thought internet search on ordinary computers would work like this by 2011 already. Much less decades ago. It's really just how Google 2020 (or more realistically 2030) is supposed to work - a bit smarter in figuring out what you are looking for.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
February 16th, 2011 at 5:35:46 AM
permalink
I am with P90 on this - fail to see the revolutionary side of this. From what I heard on the show, and some (limited) reading about the topic, my understanding is that Watson has a large database of info, stored in memory, and runs a parallel word association search, matching the words in the clue to the info in the db. This is very much like (although not quite the same) like what google servers do when you search internet. Impressive - maybe, a little, but nothing extraordinary really.
And this is definitely not "thinking".
And this is definitely not "thinking".
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 16th, 2011 at 5:52:05 AM
permalink
What really surprised me last night was Watson's inability to get the city name last night. I knew right away that O'Hare was a WW2 hero and that the WWII battle was Midway. It couldn't connect the two and came up with a non-US city. Clearly a chink in its thinking and I also think the question was designed by Jeopardy to fool Watson.
We were able after sometime able to recognize answers that Watson wouldn't get due to the complexity of the wordplay. Still, its performance last night was impressive.
Jennings looked so frustrated last night... I felt bad for him.
But is Watson revolutionary because it can understand a text message and come up with the answer and measure how certain it is of the answer. I'm not sure.
We were able after sometime able to recognize answers that Watson wouldn't get due to the complexity of the wordplay. Still, its performance last night was impressive.
Jennings looked so frustrated last night... I felt bad for him.
But is Watson revolutionary because it can understand a text message and come up with the answer and measure how certain it is of the answer. I'm not sure.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 16th, 2011 at 8:15:33 AM
permalink
Is someone entering the question as text for watson?
Why on earth would they allow humans to get into a contest on how fast you can click in? Of course the machine will be faster! that is really bothering me.
I am not finding these answers easily online.
Why on earth would they allow humans to get into a contest on how fast you can click in? Of course the machine will be faster! that is really bothering me.
I am not finding these answers easily online.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
February 16th, 2011 at 8:36:00 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboWhat really surprised me last night was Watson's inability to get the city name last night. I knew right away that O'Hare was a WW2 hero and that the WWII battle was Midway. It couldn't connect the two and came up with a non-US city.
In the early days of web browsing, searches for very specific terms, say 6 liter V8 engine, returned some results that were far, far, far off the mark. Altavista (remember it?) was notorious in this respect.
Today results more nearly reflect what is being looked for, but sometimes you enter "3:2 BJ in Las Vegas" and get a result about prostitution in Nevada.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 16th, 2011 at 9:15:29 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitIs someone entering the question as text for watson?
I think so.
Quote:Why on earth would they allow humans to get into a contest on how fast you can click in? Of course the machine will be faster! that is really bothering me.
It's not how fast you can click, it's how fast you can figure out the answer. Like it was said above, human contestants often click before they know the answer, Watson cannot do that. It has to complete the analysis before clicking. I have seen it happen several times that it did have the right answer, but one of the other contestants was faster to click.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 16th, 2011 at 9:19:45 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanIt's not how fast you can click, it's how fast you can figure out the answer. Like it was said above, human contestants often click before they know the answer, Watson cannot do that.
That's why wrong questions earn a deduction in the score. Otherwise who clicks in faster would have a huge advantage. In fact, not clicking without a question would help preserve the bankroll as it were.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 16th, 2011 at 9:26:47 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedThat's why wrong questions earn a deduction in the score. Otherwise who clicks in faster would have a huge advantage. In fact, not clicking without a question would help preserve the bankroll as it were.
Sometimes it makes sense to click before you know though. For example, remember the clue about Voldermot? I knew I will know the question as soon as I heard the "Mad Eye Moody" line (I am a big Harry Potter fan), well before I had time to take in and understand what exactly the question was - the first thing, that popped in my mind was Harry Potter, but a couple of seconds later, when I finally took in the clue, I knew it was about Voldermot, but by then it was all over.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
February 16th, 2011 at 9:32:46 AM
permalink
As is often the case, wikipedia is hard to beat sometimes for topical stuff, I've been checking that out.
This does not appear to be exactly correct. If I have it right, all the contestants have to wait until Trebeck finishes talking, and evidently there is a penalty for clicking before you are supposed to [a time elapses before you can click again]. Perhaps only for this match? that I don't know.
I saw that too, but it usually went the other way the night I saw it.
Jennings says clicking in faster is in fact just what you want to do. Below from Wikipedia:
PS: wikipedia answers another question I had
Quote: weaselmanIt's not how fast you can click, it's how fast you can figure out the answer. Like it was said above, human contestants often click before they know the answer, Watson cannot do that. It has to complete the analysis before clicking.
This does not appear to be exactly correct. If I have it right, all the contestants have to wait until Trebeck finishes talking, and evidently there is a penalty for clicking before you are supposed to [a time elapses before you can click again]. Perhaps only for this match? that I don't know.
Quote: weaselmanI have seen it happen several times that it did have the right answer, but one of the other contestants was faster to click.
I saw that too, but it usually went the other way the night I saw it.
Quote: NareedThat's why wrong questions earn a deduction in the score. Otherwise who clicks in faster would have a huge advantage. In fact, not clicking without a question would help preserve the bankroll as it were.
Jennings says clicking in faster is in fact just what you want to do. Below from Wikipedia:
[from an earlier trial]Quote:Originally Watson buzzed in electronically, but Jeopardy! requested that it physically press a button, as the human contestants would. Even with a robotic "finger" pressing the buzzer, Watson remained faster than its human competitors. Jennings noted, "If you're trying to win on the show, the buzzer is all," and that Watson "can knock out a microsecond-precise buzz every single time with little or no variation. Human reflexes can't compete with computer circuits in this regard." Also, Watson could avoid the time-penalty for accidentally buzzing in too early, because it was electronically notified when to buzz, while humans had to anticipate the right moment
PS: wikipedia answers another question I had
Quote:Watson is "deaf" and doesn't utilize speech recognition
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
February 16th, 2011 at 9:41:51 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanSometimes it makes sense to click before you know though. For example, remember the clue about Voldermot?
I haven't seen the show in months :) It's on when I'm at work.
When I do watch I don't play along with a clicker. I just say the questions aloud if I know them or can think of them. Usuaully I read faster than Trebek, so I know the right question before I could click. Sometimes I need to think it over. Sometimes I don't even understand what response is wanted.
And I'd likely get any Harry Potter questions wrong. I heard there's some book based on the movie... :P
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
February 16th, 2011 at 10:38:14 AM
permalink
Trebek explained some things on Regis this morning. The text is sent to Watson when the question is seen.
It takes Watson 4 milliseconds to press the button after the question is read. It cannot lock itself out. If you press the button before the question is read, you are locked out. The 2 contestents last night locked themselves out 9 times. He also alluded that the results tonight will be substantially different than last night.
So, essentially, if the contestents and Watson know the answer, the contestent has a 4 millisecond length of time to respond before Watson will ring in, which is just about impossible. It did happen a couple of times last night however.
So, the only way that the contestents get the question is that Watson doesn't get it or gets it wrong. If I were the contestents, I would just let Watson ring in and let it try.
It takes Watson 4 milliseconds to press the button after the question is read. It cannot lock itself out. If you press the button before the question is read, you are locked out. The 2 contestents last night locked themselves out 9 times. He also alluded that the results tonight will be substantially different than last night.
So, essentially, if the contestents and Watson know the answer, the contestent has a 4 millisecond length of time to respond before Watson will ring in, which is just about impossible. It did happen a couple of times last night however.
So, the only way that the contestents get the question is that Watson doesn't get it or gets it wrong. If I were the contestents, I would just let Watson ring in and let it try.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 16th, 2011 at 11:17:01 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambit
This does not appear to be exactly correct. If I have it right, all the contestants have to wait until Trebeck finishes talking, and evidently there is a penalty for clicking before you are supposed to [a time elapses before you can click again]. Perhaps only for this match? that I don't know.
Yes, I knew that, sorry if I made it sound differently somehow. The penalty for clicking before the clue is read is not being able to click again for a quarter of a second AFAIK.
Quote:I saw that too, but it usually went the other way the night I saw it.
Yes, the second night was brutal. But on the first game, there were many more cases like that - Watson had the answer but was "outclicked" by one of the other contestants.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
