IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy • Hacker News Board

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#81

Post by kingkilr » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:24 PM UTC

Splines wrote: post #76

CWuestefeld wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But along the same lines... I wonder if it's able to say to itself "I think I'm in the right ballpark, so I'll buzz now" and then take the 3-4 seconds it takes the host to recognize the buzz and ask for an answer, to finish its processing to get to the answer it's most confident of. In other words, it doesn't need to actually have the answer to buzz. It just needs some confidence that the answer is close at han…

I'd wager that humans do the same thing (e.g., when they have an answer and it's on the tip of their tongue)

It wouldn't surprise me, when watching (and playing along) I often start saying the "What is" or "Who was" before I have the answer.

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#82

Post by blauwbilgorgel » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:25 PM UTC

kls wrote: post #25

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No disrespect intended but, I think you are lacking a fundamental understanding of machine learning, genetic algorithms, neural networks and AI in general. 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. Su…

Arguing that consciousness and the brain is different from deterministic algorithms, or neural networks is perfectly valid. It doesn't show lack of understanding of AI. Just that the debater is not an adherer of strong AI functionalism.

Using Gödel's incompleteness theorems one can argue that no set of algorithms is capable of perfectly modeling human consciousness. A logically correct algorithm can not give faulty output, yet internally conclude that output to be correct. We do not make the same mental steps as a set of algorythms: I can't say this post is correct with a 97.77% accuracy. In fact I wonder if you will respect me more or less after this reply, if you'll believe I lack understanding of machine learning... not if I passed the Turing test for intelligence or not. Calculation != Intelligence.

Like the robot in the Chinese room is still a puppet, that doesn't really understand Chinese. Attaching a radar to a flying drone doesn't make it feel or act like a bat.

Much of AI is still Advanced Informatics.

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#83

Post by dmd » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:27 PM UTC

jonhohle wrote: post #64

meterplech wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love seeing this type of response. It's similar to the race to put a man on the moon. Some technology should be there to inspire.

Not just inspire, but push the envelope. The fallout of traveling to space not only unified the country but provided new technologies which simply had no need to be created until something as epic as landing on an orbiting satellite was attempted. These actions pay dividends unrelated to the mission at hand.

By 'orbiting satellite' I'm guessing you meant the Moon, but I've personally always been most amazed not by the moon landing per se, but the subsequent return from the surface to dock with the waiting CSM.

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#84

Post by andrewce » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:31 PM UTC

teraflop wrote: post #61

ero5004 wrote: post #17

Won't Watson have a significant advantage on the final Jeopardy question where time is not nearly as much of a factor? If it can just keep pace for most of the game and then bet it all on that last question, it should be no contest.

I wouldn't bet on it. In the "preview" round, Watson seemed to come up with its answers more or less instantaneously. (Or at least, before the host finished reading the question.) My guess is the limiting factor is the quality of the underlying dataset and cleverness of the algorithms, not CPU time.

Human contestants are also able to see the question typed out (much like it's displayed on the television), so people are able to do this as well.

I'm usually able to read any given question in about a second. Granted, I used to practice speed-reading trivia questions for an hour or so per day (one of the leagues we competed in projected questions via powerpoint), but there's at least one reason most Jeopardy! contestants are able to buzz in almost immediately on most questions.

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#85

Post by trafficlight » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:36 PM UTC

aforty wrote: post #62

That article is sort of bullshit. They already taped the Watson Jeopardy episodes last month, they just haven't aired them. Watson won.

Thanks for the spoiler. I didn't want to watch it anyway.

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#86

Post by blauwbilgorgel » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:39 PM UTC

natural219 wrote: post #68

arethuza wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anyone who has worked in the field of AI would admit there are a lot of philosophical questions around the definition of intelligence and it's relationship to algorithmic problem solving. One of my favourite thought experiments in the area being Searle's Chinese Room: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

How is this anything but pure semantics? I still don't know the conceptual difference between Searle's strong AI and weak AI, other a single word change in the definition.

It's all about semantics with philosophers ;)

Searle claims through this experiment that strong AI does not exist. The robot in the room doesn't know how to talk Chinese, it just matches up symbols by using an elaborate dictionary.

Turing defined intelligence by the appearance of intelligence. If the Chinese room can make you think it houses someone that speaks Chinese, than that means the person in the room is intelligent.

To Searle everything is weak AI. Just calculation, without knowing what they really calculate. Intelligence is more than appearance, like a hologram of someone, is not that person self.

Pragmatists and functionalists play around Searle's conclusion. For them it is about the behavior, not the system itself. In Searle's vision something like the China Brain (every person in China uses a radio to act as a neuron) is ridiculous. In the functionalist view the China Brain is intelligent and self-aware.

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#87

Post by Qz » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:46 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #38

kls wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No disrespect intended but, I think you are lacking a fundamental understanding of machine learning, genetic algorithms, neural networks and AI in general. 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. Su…

I think anyone who has worked in the field of AI would admit there are a lot of philosophical questions around the definition of intelligence and it's relationship to algorithmic problem solving. One of my favourite thought experiments in the area being Searle's Chinese Room: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

If you read further on Searle and the Chinese Room, you'll find that most of his argument has been debunked and what remains is an Appeal to Common Sense. "The man in the room can't really understand Chinese--right guys?"

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#88

Post by Qz » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:51 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #56

mattmanser wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I don't think the answer is the turing test, it is a limited test of intelligence. There's also no guarantee we wouldn't be able to brute force it in time, just as deep blue was mere brute forcing. Impressive technologically, disappointing intellectually. When I think of intelligence I think of intuition, creativity, flexibility and the ability to learn. The turing test is a simple test along a long path.…

You don't understand what the Turing Test is all about. It isn't testing intelligence, it is an attempt to answer the question "Can machines think?". It's all there in that Wikipedia link that I posted. Also, what makes you think that what goes on in your own brain isn't just another form of "brute-forcing"? What makes one implementation of thinking "thinking" and another form just "brute-force"? And then, brute-forc…

It's really more like "Can we fool ourselves into believing that machines think?" which isn't actually any different from the question "Can we fool ourselves into believing other people think?"

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#89

Post by Qz » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 8:53 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #57

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm interested in seeing whether Watson has an "aggressiveness" algorithm that allows it to respond before the answer is fully spoken. You cannot buzz in until the question is completely read out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy!#cite_note-9

True. But along the same lines... I wonder if it's able to say to itself "I think I'm in the right ballpark, so I'll buzz now" and then take the 3-4 seconds it takes the host to recognize the buzz and ask for an answer, to finish its processing to get to the answer it's most confident of. In other words, it doesn't need to actually have the answer to buzz. It just needs some confidence that the answer is close at han…

I read an in depth article on Watson a few months back and I remember that it said it does in fact do that sort of confidence-based buzzing, but I'm not 100% sure.

Re: IBM's "Watson" finally ready for prime-time Jeopardy

#90

Post by blauwbilgorgel » Thu, Feb 10, 2011, 9:04 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #56

mattmanser wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I don't think the answer is the turing test, it is a limited test of intelligence. There's also no guarantee we wouldn't be able to brute force it in time, just as deep blue was mere brute forcing. Impressive technologically, disappointing intellectually. When I think of intelligence I think of intuition, creativity, flexibility and the ability to learn. The turing test is a simple test along a long path.…

You don't understand what the Turing Test is all about. It isn't testing intelligence, it is an attempt to answer the question "Can machines think?". It's all there in that Wikipedia link that I posted. Also, what makes you think that what goes on in your own brain isn't just another form of "brute-forcing"? What makes one implementation of thinking "thinking" and another form just "brute-force"? And then, brute-forc…

He does understand. The Turing test is to answer if machines can feign human intelligence. To pass a Turing test, feigning (not necessarily possessing) intelligence is enough.

The answer to insight into a system's qualia is not a Turing test:

Watson, tell us, do you feel fear? Crunching through some look-up tables Yes!

What did that prove about Watson feeling fear or not? We could have Alice talking with Watson for hours on end about fear and daddy issues, without them even knowing the taste of fruit.

That is why the Turing test is an incomplete test for human-like machine intelligence. You seem to equate feigning intelligence, with possessing intelligence. Feigning fear with possessing fear.