4 ms·

I obviously wasn't referring to Google's canned responses which offer no real insight or understanding. The description they gave make it sound like futuristic

by dstein 16y ago

I obviously wasn't referring to Google's canned responses which offer no real insight or understanding. The description they gave make it sound like futuristic AI, when clearly its not. Let me know when Google approaches IBM's Watson level. http://www.google.com/search?q=is+five+dollars+more+than+8+cents&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari http://www.google.com/search?q=is+five+dollars+more+than+8+c...

nostrademons 16y ago
http://www.google.com/search?q=5+dollars+in+cents http://www.google.com/search?q=5+dollars+in+cents BTW, there are actually queries that give you exact answers which are not specifically programmed in, eg: http://www.google.com/search?q=empire+state+building+height http://www.google.com/search?q=empire+state+building+height
Dn_Ab 16y ago
That is like saying a racecar tuned for closed tracks is more impressive than a general purpose modern car because its faster. Both leverage the same principles and similar components but with different focuses and optimize for different results. Watson is not futuristic when compared to what Google does, its mainly its packaging that makes it so readily impressive. Google are focused on different goals. Watson is optimized to list a set of confidence weighted answers/hypotheses. Google is optimized to surface a list of relevance and authority weighted documents. A Watson like google is orthogonal and could essentially be another UX on top of regular google that would completely transform the product to a different set of use cases. Your example is easy when run through an engine that's tuned for it. But it does look like google is experimenting. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+6+dollars+less+than+5+pounds http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+6+dollars+less+than+... http://www.google.com/search?q=who+produced+all+of+the+lights http://www.google.com/search?q=who+produced+all+of+the+light... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=who+produced+all+of+the+lights http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=who+produced+all+of+the...
- thamer 16y ago
  Re: “is 6 dollars less than 5 pounds”, this is how Wolfram Alpha interpreted it: “TrueQ[$6 (US dollars)<5 lb (pounds)] ”. It interpreted pounds as a unit of mass, not as the currency and gave “False” as a result. You have to pick “British Pounds” from a list of other interpretations in order to get the right answer, “True”. I don't know what it says about your argument, other than it's hard to tune the engine.
  - muyuu 16y ago
    Worked for me (interpreted "pounds" as "British pounds")

by dstein 16y ago

nostrademons 16y ago

http://www.google.com/search?q=5+dollars+in+cents http://www.google.com/search?q=5+dollars+in+cents BTW, there are actually queries that give you exact answers which are not specifically programmed in, eg: http://www.google.com/search?q=empire+state+building+height http://www.google.com/search?q=empire+state+building+height

Dn_Ab 16y ago

That is like saying a racecar tuned for closed tracks is more impressive than a general purpose modern car because its faster. Both leverage the same principles and similar components but with different focuses and optimize for different results. Watson is not futuristic when compared to what Google does, its mainly its packaging that makes it so readily impressive. Google are focused on different goals. Watson is optimized to list a set of confidence weighted answers/hypotheses. Google is optimized to surface a list of relevance and authority weighted documents. A Watson like google is orthogonal and could essentially be another UX on top of regular google that would completely transform the product to a different set of use cases. Your example is easy when run through an engine that's tuned for it. But it does look like google is experimenting. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+6+dollars+less+than+5+pounds http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+6+dollars+less+than+... http://www.google.com/search?q=who+produced+all+of+the+lights http://www.google.com/search?q=who+produced+all+of+the+light... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=who+produced+all+of+the+lights http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=who+produced+all+of+the...

thamer 16y ago
Re: “is 6 dollars less than 5 pounds”, this is how Wolfram Alpha interpreted it: “TrueQ[$6 (US dollars)<5 lb (pounds)] ”. It interpreted pounds as a unit of mass, not as the currency and gave “False” as a result. You have to pick “British Pounds” from a list of other interpretations in order to get the right answer, “True”. I don't know what it says about your argument, other than it's hard to tune the engine.
- muyuu 16y ago
  Worked for me (interpreted "pounds" as "British pounds")