Garry Kasparov on IBM's Watson • Hacker News Board

Re: Garry Kasparov on IBM's Watson

#21

Post by kenjackson » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 9:58 PM UTC

davidtgoldblatt wrote: post #20

Here are the reasons I was disappointed in Watson's showing (despite handily beating the human competitors). The most obvious was that Watson' auto-clicker was a big advantage over human thumbs, so that Watson got 100% of the points for clues to which all competitors knew the answer (if you asked Watson and the two humans "what's five plus five", Watson would win, but that's not necessarily proof of any sort of compu…

For example, on the clue "Rembrandt's biblical scene 'Storm on the Sea of' this was stolen from a Boston museum in 1990", Watson correctly answered "Galilee". But its next two answers were "Gardner Museum" and "Art theft"; no one who "understood" the question in any conventional sense would even consider these as answers because they don't make any sense.

But I think your peek into Watson's inner mind may give you a more insight than you have about the human mind.

I'm reminded of a story about how a girl told me she was good at froggy when it came to basketball. I was like, "What's froggy" and she said "when you get the ball after someone shoots it". I said, "I think its called a rebound". And she said, "that's the word, rebound... but froggy and rebound, they remind me of each other"

And your narcolepsy v insomnia example is a mistake I think a lot of humans make. Like if you ask me which way to turn a lightbulb to remove it, my brain will have both clockwise and counter-clockwise as responses. And clockwise is probably 80%, but counter clockwise is probably at 20% -- I have been known to accidentally tighten a bolt, rather than loosen it.

Re: Garry Kasparov on IBM's Watson

#22

Post by scott_s » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 11:27 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #21

davidtgoldblatt wrote: post #20

Here are the reasons I was disappointed in Watson's showing (despite handily beating the human competitors). The most obvious was that Watson' auto-clicker was a big advantage over human thumbs, so that Watson got 100% of the points for clues to which all competitors knew the answer (if you asked Watson and the two humans "what's five plus five", Watson would win, but that's not necessarily proof of any sort of compu…

For example, on the clue "Rembrandt's biblical scene 'Storm on the Sea of' this was stolen from a Boston museum in 1990", Watson correctly answered "Galilee". But its next two answers were "Gardner Museum" and "Art theft"; no one who "understood" the question in any conventional sense would even consider these as answers because they don't make any sense. But I think your peek into Watson's inner mind may give you a…

I can't count the number of times my father, when using my name, starts out my brother's name and corrects himself midway through. I've done similar things with pairs of friends I met at the same time and know in only one domain.

Re: Garry Kasparov on IBM's Watson

#23

Post by ppod » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 11:29 PM UTC

Jach wrote: post #6

jhamburger wrote: post #2

Not quite clear on why people keep pointing to the 'Toronto' question as proof that Watson is fundamentally flawed in some irreconcilable way.

That's not at all what Kasparov said: My concern about its utility, and I read they would like it to answer medical questions, is that Watson's performance reminded me of chess computers. They play fantastically well in maybe 90% of positions, but there is a selection of positions they do not understand at all. Worse, by definition they do not understand what they do not understand and so cannot avoid them. A strong…

there is a selection of positions they do not understand at all. Worse, by definition they do not understand what they do not understand and so cannot avoid them.

This is almost certainly true for humans too in terms of general problems rather than specifically chess. There are probably concepts which we have so little understanding and comprehension of that we can't even see our own ignorance. Rumsfeld's known unknowns.

Re: Garry Kasparov on IBM's Watson

#24

Post by woan » Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 11:35 PM UTC

Kasparov is spot on in that Watson's DeepQA has yet to prove itself in a meaningful way. If it proves itself as an effective medical advisor, that will be far more impressive than the Jeopardy win (as impressive as that was in itself).

I think everyone was disappointed in the applicability of the Deep Blue accomplishment in other fields. Were any of the special purpose ASICs used to defeat Kasparov used in any other application? As far as I know a significant part of the Deep Blue development team left IBM relatively soon after the accomplishment.