Can a Computer Beat the Best Jeopardy! Players?

[kennyc]

The thing I find most interesting about this whole thing is the computer's/Watson's ability to process language. Just understanding the question and that category it fits into is an incredible feat and to be able to come up with an answer and assign a probability to it and buzz in before the humans (who can buzz just if they "might" know) - It's great stuff. I'm really impressed with what they have done.

It even throws in a few comments here and there "Lets finish up xxxx category" etc.

[kennyc]

Also I swear they chose the category "Etude Brute" just to confuse the speech sythesizer. as well as the analysis algorithm.

[kennyc]

And the final: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...172060658.html

[kennyc]

And this article from AP:

I agree with this excerpt:
....
"The way to think about this is: Can Watson decide to create Watson?" said Pradeep Khosla, dean of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "We are far from there. Our ability to create is what allows us to discover and create new knowledge and technology."

Spark of creation

Experts in the field say it is more than the spark of creation that separates man from his mechanical spawn. It is the pride creators can take, the empathy we can all have with the winners and losers, and that magical mix of adrenaline, fear and ability that kicks in when our backs are against the wall and we are in survival mode.

What humans have that Watson, IBM's earlier chess champion Deep Blue, and all their electronic predecessors and software successors do not have and will not get is the sort of thing that makes song, romance, smiles, sadness and all that jazz. It's something the experts in computers, robotics and artificial intelligence know very well because they can't figure out how it works in people, much less duplicate it. It's that indescribable essence of humanity.

Read more: Despite computer's "Jeopardy!" win, experts say human brain unique - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...#ixzz1EDiG1600

[MargaretLake]

I think the humans were ringing in faster last night. It looked like they hit the buzzer whether or not they knew the answer. I think if they had used that strategy in the first two challenges, they would have fared better.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MargaretLake

I think the humans were ringing in faster last night. It looked like they hit the buzzer whether or not they knew the answer. I think if they had used that strategy in the first two challenges, they would have fared better.

Certainly the one on the right was (sorry don't know the names) ....

What I found interesting is that both human opponents stated that the reason they felt disadvantaged when playing against Watson was not that Watson was so unerring in coming up with correct answers, or how quickly this was done. Both Jennings and Rutter thought the critical difference was Watson's ability to ring in first. The way the Jeopardy rules work no player can ring in until Alex completes saying the clue. Watson does not hear this, it is transmitted electronically, at which point the computer can use the mechanical set-up it was provided to ring in. So the computer win versus lose difference may come down to human reaction time.

This recent program on PBS Nova provides background on Watson's development and training.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/sm...-on-earth.html

Moderator Notice
Political Statement removed by MobileRead Moderation Team. Expressions of partisan political opinions are expressly forbidden except in the opt-in Politics and Religion forum. Please take a moment to review our Posting Guidelines.