6 ms·
But you still give Watson too little credit here. You have typically 3s from when the "answer" is shown to when you can click the buzzer. So in 3s Watson has
by kenjackson 16y ago
But you still give Watson too little credit here. You have typically 3s from when the "answer" is shown to when you can click the buzzer. So in 3s Watson has to go through all of its databases and semantic links and formulate the question, from an answer that often doesn't even make sense to probably half of the US population. That's pretty impressive.
- baddox 16y agoI understand and appreciate what Watson is doing. It's awesome and ground-breaking. However, with contestants of this skill level, most of the responses will be known by all contestants, and the real competition is how fast you can buzz in after the light turns on indicating the clue has been completed. Think of it this way: if you had a human standing in Watson's spot, with a monitor displaying Watson's suggested response, I don't think that human would perform as well against the other human contestants. Sure, Watson would often come up with the correct response while the clue was being spoken by the host, but the human would still have to buzz in when the light turns on. If you buzz in too early, you get locked out for something like a quarter of a second. Watson would still be extremely awesome technology, but I don't think a human with access to Watson's output would compete at anywhere near the level that Watson did in the video.
- kenjackson 16y agowith contestants of this skill level Do you see what you're saying.. "contestants of this skill level"? It's Ken Jennings, Brad Rutter, and WATSON. Discussion over. The fact that there is a computer that can answer questions in 3s that put it at the level of the two greatest trivia players in history is THE story. Some jeopardy answers: Anagramed Animals -- A furry little pet: the rams Some say the Bush administration's domestic spying conflicts with FISA, the Foreign Intelligence this Act "R"2"D"2 -- More rubicund Half the people in the US probably couldn't answer any of these at all, much less necessarily even know what the answer was referring to, period. The fact that the computer may have an advantage at pressing the buzzer against the two best buzzer pushers of all time is a pretty small deal. IMHO. :-)
- jhpriestley 16y agoHow many people in the US could answer these if given access to wikipedia, the OED, etc? Nearly anyone.
- kenjackson 16y agoSo you're saying that a human aided by a computer, internet connection, and access to additional data can answer intentionally formed trivia questions as well as an unmanned computer (although I suspect a fair bit slower)? This is the biggest innovation in computers in my lifetime and kids are like, "but its no Twitter".
- baddox 16y agoWatson doesn't have internet access. It has just learned from thousands of sources and thousands of Jeopardy! questions. Just like human Jeopardy! contestants.
- jhpriestley 16y agoI'm saying that Watson's advantage in trivia-answering comes mainly from aptitudes which are already well-known to favor the computer. Watson's human-level performance at Jeopardy comes from the combination of highly superhuman data retrieval with highly subhuman language processing. Watson is more a spectacle than an innovation.
- nl 16y agoAnd here we see the AI paradox.. As soon as AI succeeds at something, it is simple.
- mkramlich 16y ago"Reverse primary thrust, Marvin." That's what they say to me. "Open airlock number 3, Marvin." "Marvin, can you pick up that piece of paper?" Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper. Marvin the Paranoid Android, in HHGG