21–30 of 148 posts
In reality, Ken Jennings was beaten on the final answer.
I'm interested in seeing whether Watson has an "aggressiveness" algorithm that allows it to respond before the answer is fully spoken. Humans have an advantage in this regard because it goes right to the heart of intelligence. If the game boils down to reaction time, Watson will probably win.
There's a problem with statistical significance given that the match consists only of two games: http://www.quora.com/Does-IBM-Watson-Jeopardy-match-contribu...
I highly doubt that IBM will dismantle the machine when they're done (yes, I know that's what they did with Deep Blue, but this is different). I'd bet that far more than two games will be played with Watson, over the next few years. Also, as pointed out in that thread, this is no different than a regular Jeopardy game. One game consists of dozens and dozens of questions. If Watson answers them all correctly and the h…
Even on the question level, a disclaimer should be given if Watson doesn't answer enough questions for statistical significance.
Finally, the issue here is with contributing to the statistical ignorance of people watching the two game match. Sure, Watson has played many games already before the match but that's not what's being shown on TV.
engadget reported that Watson "destroyed" its human competition while others reported that humans were "taken down." In reality, Ken Jennings was beaten on the final answer. I'm interested in seeing whether Watson has an "aggressiveness" algorithm that allows it to respond before the answer is fully spoken. Humans have an advantage in this regard because it goes right to the heart of intelligence. If the game boils d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Watson is not a simulation any more than your brain is a simulation. Your brain is ( likely ) mostly just algorithms and data structures, albeit on an enormous scale. This could be wrong, but I'm betting not. What else could the brain possibly be? It's not magic. > We will know when Watson is dangerous when it feels fear, angst, want. Not just an algorithm to sort facts and simulate speech. Nah. Look at good science…
I deny that the human brain IS algorithms. It is neurons connected by dendrons/synapses. Right? Small bits of it can be algorithmically simulated. Large processes can be algorithmically simulated. But to call the algorithm "intelligence" is sympathetic magic. Algorithms work in a different way; they break in a different way; they are hard-coded so don't change. They are a simulation.
I was introduced to Watson when I took a sub-project from IBM related to Watson, I had no idea what it was untill taking the contract, at which point I was introduced to Watson and it is an impressive feat, it is with out a doubt the state of the art in NLP AI. Sufficient to say, AI algorithms differ from the static and rigged structures that most developers write for business apps, web or mobile apps (even the good developers that decouple stuff), the scale of difference is orders of magnitude.
In many cases machines learning has the ability to generate new code based on learning and build new connections and new algorithms to deal with learned problems. Applications literally generate new and novel applications and then connect themselves to these new nodes.
This is not stuff usually broached when you just need to credit a line in an account payable or get the sales volume for last month. There is a huge gap between the code used to write business applications and the structures used in AI.
This is not meant as a critique of you or anyone in general, and is not intend to belittle business app, mobile or web developers but rather to help inform people that, those who have not worked in the field of AI, that their understanding of software development has little relevance when applied to the field of AI. It is literally a different world where the concepts are totally foreign to a non-AI developer.
Humanity is closing in on building machines to pass the Turing Test. Watson beat both champs in the demo round a few weeks ago and I fully expect him - yes, him - to beat them in the match coming up. I can't wait to watch this live. What an epic moment in the process of moving slowly from weak AI -> strong AI. Watson can do amazing NLP (and presumably Machine Learning), which is something that the general public perc…
Watson is a simulation, a clever puppet designed to mimic human behavior. We have no more to fear from it, than from a punch and judy show. Cleverer and cleverer puppets will not become intelligent machines. A dedicated effort to build a massive neural cluster simulation might become intelligent, but it will think such incomprehensible thoughts as to be fairly useless to us (think intelligent rhododendon; what would…
Anyway, the answer to this type of conundrum is simple and well-known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
Of course it should be noted that we aren't there yet for Watson. Even in the restricted domain of a game show, when Watson fails, it does so with a different mode, compared to humans, so we can identify that it isn't actually a human.
Now, won't somebody please design a viable successor to the Concorde?
There's a problem with statistical significance given that the match consists only of two games: http://www.quora.com/Does-IBM-Watson-Jeopardy-match-contribu...
engadget reported that Watson "destroyed" its human competition while others reported that humans were "taken down." In reality, Ken Jennings was beaten on the final answer. I'm interested in seeing whether Watson has an "aggressiveness" algorithm that allows it to respond before the answer is fully spoken. Humans have an advantage in this regard because it goes right to the heart of intelligence. If the game boils d…
You cannot buzz in until the question is completely read out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simulation of what? It can actually answer Jeopardy questions. As good or better than the best Jeopardy player on the planet. (We will see.) Another task, previously only conquered by evolution, now conquered by algorithms written by humans. Watson doesn’t pretend to be good at Jeopardy, it just is.
> Another task, previously only conquered by evolution I'm pretty sure that Jeopardy performance as such has not been strongly selected for among the ancestors of present day H. sapiens. (And the related things that may have been -- effective language use, good memory, etc. -- are not so obviously "conquered by algorithms written by humans" however well Watson does.)