Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

This was one of the coolest half hours of TV I've seen in a long, long time.

 

The computer, Watson, is not connected to the internet.

 

He gets the clues via text document sent to him. To see a minor explanation of how he deciphers the words, and figures out WHAT is being asked for, was pretty incredible. If you can HULU tonight's episode, or if you're on the west coast and it hasn't come on yet, I'd highly recommend it.

 

One part shows the "progression" of Watson, in a practice session where a clue was asking for a "non dairy creamer" and watson said "Milk" :) Then they showed how he could take a question similar and really "figure out" what the clue was getting at.

 

Cool, and terrifying all at once.

Posted

Thanks for the explanation Steve.

Receiving the question as ASCII DRAMATICALLY simplifies the task of the computer. This, in my mind, makes for an unfair completion. I read that the computer handily won a "scrimmage" a month ago. I assume it faired equally well tonite?

Still, it's pretty darn impressive that it can do this.

I'd be curious as to how the computer searches for the "answer". I assume does it basically just scans a huge database (obviously w/ some sort of indexing/hashing involved).

Posted

Thanks for the explanation Steve.

Receiving the question as ASCII DRAMATICALLY simplifies the task of the computer. This, in my mind, makes for an unfair completion. I read that the computer handily won a "scrimmage" a month ago. I assume it faired equally well tonite?

Still, it's pretty darn impressive that it can do this.

I'd be curious as to how the computer searches for the "answer". I assume does it basically just scans a huge database (obviously w/ some sort of indexing/hashing involved).

Your questions are basically answered in the show tonight. I can't remember specifics so I'm not even going to try.

Posted

Thanks for the explanation Steve.

Receiving the question as ASCII DRAMATICALLY simplifies the task of the computer. This, in my mind, makes for an unfair completion. I read that the computer handily won a "scrimmage" a month ago. I assume it faired equally well tonite?

Still, it's pretty darn impressive that it can do this.

I'd be curious as to how the computer searches for the "answer". I assume does it basically just scans a huge database (obviously w/ some sort of indexing/hashing involved).

 

The score is $5000, $5000, $2000 currently (computer tied at $5000). Its going to take 3 shows to complete the game as there's background info they show. What amazed me is how it "knows" what the clue is even looking for. Sure, there are key words, but it could be SO MANY possibilities if you just look at the words. Anyway, take a look.

Posted

 

Receiving the question as ASCII DRAMATICALLY simplifies the task of the computer.

i was disappointed that voice recognition wasn't used, mostly for selfish reasons...i'd love an electronic medical record system that i could dictate directly into accurately with the computer intelligently parsing the info. looks like that's still a ways off (even on the research level). that would have also made the machine appear much more human which might have been alarming.

 

i agree that it seemed an unfair game with the machine getting the questions in a different form. but its reassuring that computers aren't ready to replace humans just yet.

Posted

Thanks for the explanation Steve.

Receiving the question as ASCII DRAMATICALLY simplifies the task of the computer. This, in my mind, makes for an unfair completion. I read that the computer handily won a "scrimmage" a month ago. I assume it faired equally well tonite?

Still, it's pretty darn impressive that it can do this.

I'd be curious as to how the computer searches for the "answer". I assume does it basically just scans a huge database (obviously w/ some sort of indexing/hashing involved).

Thank you. I was disappointed to learn that the questions are electronically entered as data to ' Watson ' rather than using voice-recognition technology - in my opinion, this renders the display of IBM's AI technology far less impressive.

 

Apparently Watson uses a series of algorithms to ' decide ' which of the multiple choices in ' his ' huge database is the ' best ' answer to the question at hand, and also some sort of ' level-of-confidence ' metric to determine whether to ' buzz-in ' - all cool stuff, but not as impressive as speaking your query to the Star Trek computer about the USS Enterprise, I think.

Posted

I wonder if the computer can possibly screw up in final jeopardy when it has the extra time to give its answer. I'll also be curious to see how it determines what to bet going into that round or for daily doubles (did it get any of those yesterday?).

Posted

I didn't see the episode but I did catch a clip.

 

I'm calling Shenanigans because I recognize the voice. That's not really a computer, it's Professor Steven Hawking

Posted
I'll also be curious to see how it determines what to bet going into that round or for daily doubles (did it get any of those yesterday?).

It did get a daily double. If I remember right it was the second answer revealed, so it choose to wager $1000 and got it correct.

Posted

I'm confused why lacking voice recognition is a downfall for you guys. I'm not arguing, just maybe need some clarification. Isn't voice recognition a fairly "old" technology? I mean, I remember Dragon Naturally Speaking was pretty accurate 5+ years ago. And that program cost $99 or so. I have an iphone app that can dictate what I say that costs $.99 this year. It's "fairly" accurate. I would think for a couple grand (and I'm guessing IBM spent hundreds of thousands if not millions on this project) they could get a dynamite voice recognition system. Since all players have to wait to buzz in until Alex is done reading, is this really an issue?

 

Maybe someone can correct me here.

Posted

I'm confused why lacking voice recognition is a downfall for you guys. I'm not arguing, just maybe need some clarification.

 

I can see it both ways. First, by getting it via text, it can start searching immediatly for an answer. BUT, with voice rec, it would need to hear the whole answer first, before searching. BUT, the other contestants can see and read the answer while being read. So in my mind, it's almost a non-issue.

Posted

I'm confused why lacking voice recognition is a downfall for you guys. I'm not arguing, just maybe need some clarification. Isn't voice recognition a fairly "old" technology? I mean, I remember Dragon Naturally Speaking was pretty accurate 5+ years ago. And that program cost $99 or so. I have an iphone app that can dictate what I say that costs $.99 this year. It's "fairly" accurate. I would think for a couple grand (and I'm guessing IBM spent hundreds of thousands if not millions on this project) they could get a dynamite voice recognition system. Since all players have to wait to buzz in until Alex is done reading, is this really an issue?

 

Maybe someone can correct me here.

it's still way too slow and too inaccurate, at least in my hands. have you ever watched closed captions on tv? i assume they're still using people to do it as the errors are not systematic (and very prevalent). why aren't they using voice recognition (and if they are,it's doing a terrible job)? i think it's because it works too slowly. i have colleagues that dictate into dragon and i've watched them demonstrate it. even after the program learns their voice and cadence (which takes a significant time investment), they still have to talk very slowly and there's still about a 5% mistaken transcription rate. so one then needs to carefully proof the product with a fine tooth comb. my human transcriptionist makes much fewer mistakes and leaves blanks when she's occasionally unsure, making it much easier to find the problems. i dictate extremely quickly (at least 2X as fast as my dragon colleagues) and it still takes about 40 minutes per day. doubling that adds up pretty fast and that's not including the extra time for a very careful proof read. one would think fixing these issues would be trivial but apparently it's not. in the case of the show, i suspect the machine would be at a disadvantage because of these inaccuracies and lag time but maybe i'm wrong.

Posted

I wonder if the computer can possibly screw up in final jeopardy when it has the extra time to give its answer. I'll also be curious to see how it determines what to bet going into that round or for daily doubles (did it get any of those yesterday?).

 

You got your wish tonight. It answered Toronto for final Jeopardy and the topic was "US Cities". It wasn't very confident though and only wagered 900 bucks.

Posted (edited)

I wonder if the computer can possibly screw up in final jeopardy when it has the extra time to give its answer. I'll also be curious to see how it determines what to bet going into that round or for daily doubles (did it get any of those yesterday?).

Here's a link that explains how much it chooses to bet:

 

Watson's wagering strategies

 

Here's an explanation of why it missed so bad on final jeopardy last night:

 

Toronto??

 

Finally - a lot has been discussed about the way the data is received - this article discusses that

 

How Watson sees, hears and speaks

 

Thought it was very interesting that Watson actually physically presses a button - with comment that humans can and do buzz in faster than his best possible reaction time.

 

 

I think people who are so focused on the way the question is input are really missing the whole point. The technological breakthrough is what is done AFTER the question is received - the extent of comprehending the meaning/nuance of complex/free-form language using AI. It is absolutely NOT just a search through a big database - it is MUCH MUCH more complicated than that.

 

Stevewin (IBMer - 25 yrs)

Edited by stevewin
Posted

Here's an explanation of why it missed so bad on final jeopardy last night:

 

Toronto??

I'm sure the IBM'ers could throw in a few KLoCs to give him a very nice bedside manner too, but I assume ' Watson ' could screw-up just as badly on a life-or-death medical query, or make an equally catastrophic financial decision should it be similarly ' confused ' ? :unsure:

Posted

Here's a link that explains how much it chooses to bet:

 

Watson's wagering strategies

 

Here's an explanation of why it missed so bad on final jeopardy last night:

 

Toronto??

 

Finally - a lot has been discussed about the way the data is received - this article discusses that

 

How Watson sees, hears and speaks

 

Thought it was very interesting that Watson actually physically presses a button - with comment that humans can and do buzz in faster than his best possible reaction time.

 

 

I think people who are so focused on the way the question is input are really missing the whole point. The technological breakthrough is what is done AFTER the question is received - the extent of comprehending the meaning/nuance of complex/free-form language using AI. It is absolutely NOT just a search through a big database - it is MUCH MUCH more complicated than that.

 

Stevewin (IBMer - 25 yrs)

watson is an extemely impressive accomplishment. i certainly get that the nuances of language are being appreciated by the computer, albeit through text. but it would be that much more impressive (and useful) to have it done the way humans do it...through "hearing". after all, the "natural" and thus most efficient interface with humans would seem to be the spoken word. as you can tell, i've been frustrated with the pace of speech recognition technology improvements in the last 20 years. i'm sure your scientists are as well. i was hoping for a major breakthrough resulting from a project such as this. alas, science doesn't usually work that way.

Posted

watson is an extemely impressive accomplishment. i certainly get that the nuances of language are being appreciated by the computer, albeit through text. but it would be that much more impressive (and useful) to have it done the way humans do it...through "hearing". after all, the "natural" and thus most efficient interface with humans would seem to be the spoken word. as you can tell, i've been frustrated with the pace of speech recognition technology improvements in the last 20 years. i'm sure your scientists are as well. i was hoping for a major breakthrough resulting from a project such as this. alas, science doesn't usually work that way.

Regardless of your desire for advances in speech recognition, that simply wasn't part of this particular project. The goal was not to take the spoken language and interpret it - it was to take language (however inputted) and interpret it as a (super smart, super fast) human would. Realize also - discussions of the potential application of this technology are focused more on mining/understanding thousands/millions of stored written documents, not interpreting the spoken word (as I said before - the real work/technology is applied AFTER the prompt is received).

×
×
  • Create New...