6 ms·

From the Q&A with Ken Jennings: http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken-jennings.html?hpid=talkbox1 http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken-jennings.htm

by judofyr 16y ago

From the Q&A with Ken Jennings: http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken-jennings.html?hpid=talkbox1 http://live.washingtonpost.com/jeopardy-ken-jennings.html?hp... Q: Seemed to me, for many of the questions, that the computer was just better at buzzing in. Does Watson have an unfair advantage for timing the buzz-in? A: As Jeopardy devotees know, if you're trying to win on the show, the buzzer is all. On any given night, nearly all the contestants know nearly all the answers, so it's just a matter of who masters buzzer rhythm the best. Watson does have a big advantage in this regard, since it can knock out a microsecond-precise buzz every single time with little or no variation. Human reflexes can't compete with computer circuits in this regard. But I wouldn't call this unfair...precise timing just happens to be one thing computers are better at than we humans. It's not like I think Watson should try buzzing in more erratically just to give homo sapiens a chance.

Jd 16y ago
Homo sapiens didn't have a chance in the first place.
trickjarrett 16y ago
Agreed. I don't want them to offset Watson's raw potential, but why not just acknowledge the processing power put him ahead of the buzzer.
ars 16y ago
Seems to me they should have chosen harder questions. They should try to pick questions such that the contestants only know about 1/3 of them. Then lets see how the computer does. This is (should be) a contest of knowledge not buzzing.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  But that's true for normal Jeopardy too. The best buzzer person (Ken Jennings or Brad Rutter) wins because of their reflexes and timing. Watson just took that edge off the table and flipped it back at them.
  - ars 16y ago
    I meant change it for regular Jeopardy as well.
    - trickjarrett 16y ago
      That's good for a intellectual challenge, but for game shows to work, they need to be questions that players at home, viewers who earn them their advertising dollars, know. They want us to be sitting on the couch shouting out the answers. If we're sitting there clueless, it's a much shorter distance to changing the channel or taking it off the dvr.

by judofyr 16y ago

Jd 16y ago

Homo sapiens didn't have a chance in the first place.

trickjarrett 16y ago

Agreed. I don't want them to offset Watson's raw potential, but why not just acknowledge the processing power put him ahead of the buzzer.

ars 16y ago

Seems to me they should have chosen harder questions. They should try to pick questions such that the contestants only know about 1/3 of them. Then lets see how the computer does. This is (should be) a contest of knowledge not buzzing.

kenjackson 16y ago
But that's true for normal Jeopardy too. The best buzzer person (Ken Jennings or Brad Rutter) wins because of their reflexes and timing. Watson just took that edge off the table and flipped it back at them.
- ars 16y ago
  I meant change it for regular Jeopardy as well.
  - trickjarrett 16y ago
    That's good for a intellectual challenge, but for game shows to work, they need to be questions that players at home, viewers who earn them their advertising dollars, know. They want us to be sitting on the couch shouting out the answers. If we're sitting there clueless, it's a much shorter distance to changing the channel or taking it off the dvr.