Watson kicking ass in Jeopardy.
- Thread starter Edrondol
- Start date
SneakyDave
Well-known member
Is Watson really trying to figure out the answers, or is he just doing some fancy internal googling to get them? I think I got disenchanted with the whole Deep Blue / AI saga when I heard that part of its "intelligence" was just recording or memorizing all the moves Kasparov had ever done given a scenerio. I don't think that's real intelligence, that's just an encyclopedia.
Trombones13
Well-known member
It's only been through the first round (Double Jeopardy is tonight), but Watson and Brad are tied at $5k while Ken has $2k, if I remember correctly.
Edrondol
Well-known member
When I first wrote the post Watson was at about $3K while the other two were both hardly on the board.
What I think is interesting is that Watson's first choice was the first column $800 and was the Daily Double. From there it went straight across the rows -> $200, $200, $200, $400...So how did it go right to that area? It'll be interesting to see how it chooses things today.
And I thought it was going to be 2 full games not one game stretched over 2 days.
What I think is interesting is that Watson's first choice was the first column $800 and was the Daily Double. From there it went straight across the rows -> $200, $200, $200, $400...So how did it go right to that area? It'll be interesting to see how it chooses things today.
And I thought it was going to be 2 full games not one game stretched over 2 days.
SneakyDave
Well-known member
I heard that Watson had a gaffe in which he stated a "question" for an "answer" that a competitor already had given wrong. So they didn't build Watson to "hear" answers from competitors, and find out if those answers were wrong or not?
Edrondol
Well-known member
Nope. Watson receives the text of the question at the time that it's revealed to the other contestants.
SneakyDave
Well-known member
No, I meant that I read that a contestant answered a question incorrectly, then Watson "buzzed in", and gave the same incorrect answer.
Here's the story I was reading which I found interesting. I guess they didn't think to include some kind of voice recognition of contestant answers to make sure Watson wouldn't give the same one?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380351,00.asp
Here's the story I was reading which I found interesting. I guess they didn't think to include some kind of voice recognition of contestant answers to make sure Watson wouldn't give the same one?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380351,00.asp
Trombones13
Well-known member
Oh, yeah; I think you're right (except that it's over three days, not two).
Yep; I think Ken said "the 20's" and then Watson said "1920s." Alex said, "No...Ken just said that." haha
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Interesting observation. I wonder why the program team didn't write Watson to hear incorrect answers and apply that to the decision making heuristics as an exclusion data set?
Salty
Active member
There were a lot more problems than just hearing. Some of the more ambiguous questions, at the end, Watson's first and second possible answers were incorrect.
Point being human contestants were able to parse the words in the question and understand the perceived answer while Watson was incapable of understanding the question at hand. As shown by numerous answers in which the first two were totally incorrect. Which happened often.
There was a Harry Potter question in which Watson had absolutely no clue what the answer was.
Point being human contestants were able to parse the words in the question and understand the perceived answer while Watson was incapable of understanding the question at hand. As shown by numerous answers in which the first two were totally incorrect. Which happened often.
There was a Harry Potter question in which Watson had absolutely no clue what the answer was.
SneakyDave
Well-known member
I'll start believing in this AI stuff once I see a computer rate the sarcasm in sentences. That's where the real money is.
Edrondol
Well-known member
How would we know for certain it doesn't? If it can profess love then who are we to say? As our brains are basically organic computers (in the most simplistic of explanations) how can we say for certain that a machine can't, won't or HASN'T gained some measure of sentience? Hell, most PEOPLE I know don't know if they are in love or what they are feeling at a specific time. Feelings are non-quantifiable and can therefore be claimed by a machine as well.
In the end, does it matter if a machine is not sentient but acts that way due t programming? If it reacts to its environment and acts accordingly then we'd never know for certain as to the voracity of its claims of acknowledgment of itself as an aware entity.
In the end, does it matter if a machine is not sentient but acts that way due t programming? If it reacts to its environment and acts accordingly then we'd never know for certain as to the voracity of its claims of acknowledgment of itself as an aware entity.
Similar threads
- Question
