Moderator: Thanas
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
Without a deeper understanding of how Watson works, I'd wager it's because searching is slower or impractical to some extent. Subtle differences in the question can change the answers to the point that plain text queries just aren't enough to tell the difference. Searches aren't going to be quite as helpful for analogies, as the most obvious example.Destructionator XIII wrote:It's not really my area of expertise.
With that in mind though, I'm not really impressed. In my experience, the best search engine results are a literal match of what I wrote - the computer shouldn't try to understand, it should just search. The internet is so big now that the odds are good that someone else has already asked my exact question, so I can get human results from a stupid computer with a big enough database.
Watson is interesting from a theory perspective, but from a practical standpoint, I don't think it will make a difference.
The best thing about the computer is what it got wrong... if it knew the definition of words like "decade", a dead stupid algorithm would have gotten one of its wrong answers correct. The hard part has got to be category definitions. (Hell, I used to never understand Before & After on Wheel of Fortune. Made it impossible. Now that I get what it's asking for though, they are pretty easy.)
Actually, that is an unfair edge. If they wanted it to be fair, they would look at the response time of the best other contestants and then enforce a randomly selected buzz time on part of the computer.Singular Intellect wrote:Of course Watson is faster at reading the questions and likely more precise with buzzing in (it should be noted Watson does have a physical buzzer it must activate just like the players).
Don't see that as relevant though. Last time I checked, reading speed and thumb muscles weren't investigated prior to putting a contestant on the show.
First, a quick rundown of how Watson plays Jeopardy. The computer is fed the answer in text form at the same time the answer panel appears to the two human players. Watson then queries its database for an appropriate question response, a process that doesn't involve using the Internet at all. Welty noted that game shows are federally regulated and there were two auditors present while the episode was filmed to make sure the computer wasn't querying the Internet for answers.
Watson then must push a physical buzzer to answer questions, just like its human competitors. While this would seem to be a task at which computers would have an overwhelming advantage, Welty noted that Rutter was so well-known for his lightning fast buzzing that the producers weren't even mildly concerned.
When the match began, the computer got off to a strong start: it took control of the board away from Rutter on the second turn, immediately nailed a Daily Double square, bet $1,000, and got the question right. But later, on a Name That Decade question, Jennings answered incorrectly with "what is the 1920s?" Watson, which can't see or hear and so can't pick up on the follies of its competitors, followed Jennings' answer with its own: "What is the 1920s?"
"No, Ken said that," Alex Trebek replied as the avatar's sphere turned orange with embarrassment.
During a commercial after Watson's decade gaffe, Welty noted that the team thought the ability to process other players' wrong answers would be unnecessary. "We just didn't think it would ever happen," Welty said, laughing.
How's that fair? No other contestant is ever handicapped regarding their speed for using the buzzer. Watson had to use a physical buzzer like both others, and wouldn't buzz in until it had confidence in an answer it came up with.Thanas wrote:Actually, that is an unfair edge. If they wanted it to be fair, they would look at the response time of the best other contestants and then enforce a randomly selected buzz time on part of the computer.Singular Intellect wrote:Of course Watson is faster at reading the questions and likely more precise with buzzing in (it should be noted Watson does have a physical buzzer it must activate just like the players).
Don't see that as relevant though. Last time I checked, reading speed and thumb muscles weren't investigated prior to putting a contestant on the show.
Because its physical capacities make comparing the mental capacities useless.Singular Intellect wrote:How's that fair? No other contestant is ever handicapped regarding their speed for using the buzzer. Watson had to use a physical buzzer like both others, and wouldn't buzz in until it had confidence in an answer it came up with.
If regular Jeopardy! contestants never had to worry about their opponents buzzing speed, you might have a point.Thanas wrote:Because its physical capacities make comparing the mental capacities useless.Singular Intellect wrote:How's that fair? No other contestant is ever handicapped regarding their speed for using the buzzer. Watson had to use a physical buzzer like both others, and wouldn't buzz in until it had confidence in an answer it came up with.
Except both Jennings and Rutter managed to buzz in plenty of times, including times Watson had an answer to give. So it's speed advantage does not seem to exist to the degree you're giving it credit for.Thanas wrote:If Watson would not be much faster than a Human, you might have one too.
Absolutely. Watson could've buzzed at speed measured at the planck scale; doesn't mean shit if it doesn't understand the question, provides the wrong answer or decides to not buzz at all because of lack of confidence. All three traits which it has demostrated.Thanas wrote:It won because of its speed. Are you denying that?
And the computer buzzing in before someone is more unfair than another human contestant buzzing in first because...why? It's faster? Duh. So is the human who buzzes in first over another human.Destructionator XIII wrote:If anyone else is watching the game now, you can see what I'm talking about with the speed and Ken's face. Over and over again, he shakes his head while frantically pressing the button, but the computer has already buzzed in.
In other words, winning via a trait of innate superiority. That's as revealing as claiming the winner in a race won because they ran faster.Brad has a better poker face, but I'm sure he's in exactly the same situation.
They both beat the computer's timing a couple times, but, by far, the computer is winning because of its speed. As to knowing the answers, they are at least equal.
Watson still kicked their asses in the end. Pointing out Watson has issues and isn't perfect by any means is hardly doing the human side any favours here.AHGAHAHAHAHAAHA Final Jeopardy is what I like to see! The stupid fucking computer didn't have even the first clue; it's answer was completely unreasonable. No human would have even guessed that.
The winnings are given to charity. In IBM's case, 100% to charity, in the other two cases, 50% to charity. Watson is even more generous than humans to boot.But why the fuck is this even played for money? That'd make me feel even more cheated if I was playing. Maybe they needed some incentive for the champs to come back.
So what are you commenting on then? That the computer has a consistent and fast response time? This shouldn't exactly be surprising or particularily note worthy.Destructionator XIII wrote: I'm not commenting on fairness.
Am I missing something? I haven't watched the entire event yet (can't find it), but according to what I've read, it won.The game's only half over!Watson still kicked their asses in the end.
Jeopardy! isn't a game about smarts, its about fact recollection. That's not the impressive aspect of Watson's participation.It's a bullshit metric to say anything about smartness for the main game. Precise timing is the deciding factor."...that computer beat the two world champions. If it's stupid, what does that make our champions?"
This isn't a demostration of Watson's reaction speed.Yeah, it's an advertising gimmick so we shouldn't expect good science, but it's very important that people realize this to get a realistic appraisal of the machine. It doesn't win because it is smarter. It wins because its reaction time is faster - nothing special in a machine.
Only if, as you seemingly do, subscribe to the notion Watson's reaction speed is of any interest in the scenario whatsoever.Though, the fact that it has a fighting chance at all is moderately impressive. It playing the game is pretty cool. It winning is pretty mundane.
Reaction speed being important is an absolute mathematical fact.Singular Intellect wrote:Only if, as you seemingly do, subscribe to the notion Watson's reaction speed is of any interest in the scenario whatsoever.Though, the fact that it has a fighting chance at all is moderately impressive. It playing the game is pretty cool. It winning is pretty mundane.
I never said reaction speed wasn't important. I said it wasn't of any significant interest. Anybody knows a computer can beat a human in reaction speed.Sriad wrote:Reaction speed being important is an absolute mathematical fact.
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.
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
