IBM's Watson on Jeopardy.

[Formaldehyde]

"I'll take Computers for $50, Alex."

"A frequent reaction that people who don't really understand computers will have to Watson winning Jeopardy against the two top players who have ever appeared on the show."

"What is 'Anybody can google, so why is it such a big deal for a machine to be able to play Jeopardy better than humans'"?

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm still waiting on evidence. Yes I know what the article says. Call me a skeptic, but I don't always believe what corporate executives always say (we should all know that after Civ5 ). Of course they are going to tout all the things their product can do, but does it really do that?

I'd like to get my hands on this machine and do some testing. I bet you I can say some things to it that it just won't understand, because it wasn't programmed into it. I bet you, you can ask it some sex questions (I doubt those were programmed into it), and it wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[JollyRoger]

I bet you, you can ask it some sex questions (I doubt those were programmed into it), and it wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[warpus]

I'm still waiting on evidence. Yes I know what the article says. Call me a skeptic, but I don't always believe what corporate executives always say

If all Watson was doing was what google is doing, then google would be a lot better at what it does. There is a reason why the best search results on google are the result of you typing in keywords, not direct questions. And it's not just a matter of picking out the keywords in the question and plucking those into a simple search engine - if that was the case we'd be typing in complex sentences and questions into search engines. We're not. We're searching by direct quotes and keywords.

 

[NickyJ]

I always liked Ken Jennings, I used to watch jeapardy quite a bit when he was on. I don't have tv now, so I can't watch the show.

Kind of like me. I only watch Jeopardy when Jennings or someone else is on a streak. Other than then, I couldn't care less.

Well that makes it much less impressive. I don't think it comprehends language either, it could do something like this:

Trebek: "This city was founded by dutch colonists and referred to as the big apple."

The computer does a Google-type of search for key words. "This city was founded by dutch colonists and referred to as the big apple."

Watson: ...New York City.

That's probably an easy example, but it would be "brute force speed," as Classical Hero said, and not actual comprehension.

Exactly. Set him up to use an internet Google search, and I doubt we would notice the difference.

Yeah that is what I meant. It can do massive amounts of calculations to get the right result, but it will not understand exactly what it is doing.

Again, exactly.

The internet is much more capable and reliable. This is mostly just a gimmick.

And yet again: Exactly. I think this is a gimmick or an advertisement. Don't be surprised if IBM comes out with a search engine that will rival Google. The name: Watson.

I'd like to see evidence Watson truly understands the context of what's being said, rather than just having a good search engine and large database.

A another exactly for good measure. It doesn't understand the question. It just spews out the results of its search.

"I'll take Computers for $50, Alex."

"A frequent reaction that people who don't really understand computers will have to Watson winning Jeopardy against the two top players who have ever appeared on the show."

"What is 'Anybody can google, so why is it such a big deal for a machine to be able to play Jeopardy better than humans'"?

"I'll take Computers for $100 Alex."

"Watson is basically a Google search engine, only with all the information on the hard drive. True or False"

"What is true?"

 

[GenMarshall]

When I was your age, Deep Blue defeats a chess master .

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Chess is a lot easier for a computer to understand than language.

 

[warpus]

Indeed, in order to play chess well a computer just needs brute processing power.

The reason why it's hard to teach a computer what human language means is because human language is not context free. All computer languages are context free.

 

[Abaddon]

When I was your age, Deep Blue defeats a chess master .

This. We we're "wow'ed" with computers long ago...

 

[SuperJay]

(I'm just gonna ignore the nonsensical, ignorant posts in this thread rather than spending time correcting people who are just misinformed. Hmm, might be a good rule of thumb for OT in general, no?)

One of the neat things about seeing Watson on Jeopardy isn't just that it can recognize and interpret language, but that it's doing so in a more complex way than just providing simple answers to simple questions. Basic factual responses to simple factual questions is easy; it's the fact that Watson can answer convoluted Jeopardy questions so accurately that is impressive. Those questions are formulated in a way that provide specific information and hints embedded in the wording of the question, and the fact that he's able to nail those pretty regularly is surprising.

It's also hilarious to see the really odd things it comes up with as alternate answers to certain questions. When it doesn't understand the question, you really get some bizarre results. One of the questions last night had Watson thinking "Home is where the heart is" or "Delete key" as potential answers, which was hysterical.

Of course, we're seeing footage edited for television, so who knows - I've read that Watson crashed a lot, but I do think what we are seeing on the show is a pretty accurate representation of its capabilities. Cool stuff.

 

[ParkCungHee]

"I'll take Computers for $100 Alex."

"Watson is basically a Google search engine, only with all the information on the hard drive. True or False"

What is Computer?

 

[Abaddon]

@SuperJay

So how well would he work within a robot serving as a maid?

 

[dannyshenanigan]

The major difference between Watson and google is that Watson will read text and provide a very precise answer. Google will just give you a list of documents that might have the answer, but you have to read through it yourself to find it.

They did an episode of Nova Science Now about Watson that was very good.

 

[Earthling]

There is don't let that get in the way of Japanrocks getting high and mighty though.

He's right about everything though. Jeopardy hardly has an impressive format for any sort of real quizbowl competition. And half of the thread was/remains wrong on their facts about the Watson computer too.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's funny how those who know the rudimentary facts and use them to form their opinions appear to be "high and mighty" to those who don't. Who would have ever thought that basic education would eventually be considered to be so "elitist" by so many?

 

[NickyJ]

One of the neat things about seeing Watson on Jeopardy isn't just that it can recognize and interpret language, but that it's doing so in a more complex way than just providing simple answers to simple questions.

I shall nip this in the bud:

Watson is "deaf" and doesn't utilize speech recognition

Needless to say: It doesn't recognize speech.

It's funny how those who know the rudimentary facts and use them to form their opinions appear to be "high and mighty" to those who don't. Who would have ever thought that basic education would eventually be considered to be so "elitist" by so many?

It's funny how people like the above can't even research before they bash other users. Research must seem too "elitist" for users who can't research.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Voice recognition is different from text recognition.

The computer still can recognize and interpret language. Not all language is "speech".

Did you know that this very post utilizes no speech, but it does utilize language?

 

[NickyJ]

Voice recognition is different from text recognition.

The computer still can recognize and interpret language. Not all language is "speech".

Did you know that this very post utilizes no speech, but it does utilize language?

Google can recognize language. It can interpret language to. So why aren't we all running to Google headquarters, and welcoming the overlords?

 

[SuperJay]

I shall nip this in the bud:

Needless to say: It doesn't recognize speech.

It's funny how people like the above can't even research before they bash other users. Research must seem too "elitist" for users who can't research.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just uninformed, Nicky? I can never tell exactly.

I never said "speech recognition." You quoted my post, but apparently didn't read it. If you did read it, that's even worse. I don't really know if your intention is just to continue starting arguments and derailing threads into the ground, or if you're genuinely trying to participate in the discussion, but having a hard time understanding others' posts. (Maybe there's a language barrier here, I'm not sure. Unfortunately, I only speak English, sorry.)

Anyway, on-topic - Ken Jennings wrote an interesting article about playing against Watson here: http://www.slate.com/id/2284721/

Indeed, playing against Watson turned out to be a lot like any other Jeopardy! game, though out of the corner of my eye I could see that the middle player had a plasma screen for a face. Watson has lots in common with a top-ranked human Jeopardy! player: It's very smart, very fast, speaks in an uneven monotone, and has never known the touch of a woman. But unlike us, Watson cannot be intimidated. It never gets cocky or discouraged. It plays its game coldly, implacably, always offering a perfectly timed buzz when it's confident about an answer.

Pretty funny for a Jeopardy nerd!

EDIT:

In the middle of the floor was a huge image of Watson's on-camera avatar, a glowing blue ball crisscrossed by "threads" of thought—42 threads, to be precise, an in-joke for Douglas Adams fans.

 

[amadeus]

I'm still waiting on evidence.

Well, it's not hooked up to the internet, for one...