Man matches machine in Jeopardy! showdown
-
Any one watched last night's Man vs Machine Jeopardy? It was incredible, not the show it self, but what IBM managed to accomplish. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20031932-71.html[^] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr7IxQeXr7g&feature=player_embedded[^]
Yusuf May I help you?
-
Any one watched last night's Man vs Machine Jeopardy? It was incredible, not the show it self, but what IBM managed to accomplish. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20031932-71.html[^] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr7IxQeXr7g&feature=player_embedded[^]
Yusuf May I help you?
Jeopardy, the game for people with no education! Given that a machine has beaten Kasparov, it is not a surprise that a low brow working class american daytime show should prove simple to beat.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
Jeopardy, the game for people with no education! Given that a machine has beaten Kasparov, it is not a surprise that a low brow working class american daytime show should prove simple to beat.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
you trollin'? chess = logic trees + opening move libraries = easy for machines language = pretty darn difficult
-
Any one watched last night's Man vs Machine Jeopardy? It was incredible, not the show it self, but what IBM managed to accomplish. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20031932-71.html[^] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr7IxQeXr7g&feature=player_embedded[^]
Yusuf May I help you?
I watched it, but was disappointed - I watched the Nova segment on Watson last week and the algorithms used were predictable during the broadcast - give a direct reference to a literary character (for example) regardless of context, and Watson would answer first, seemingly every time. In fact it makes sense. It calculates potential answers, and while ranking can determine that X character is in Y novel (for example) quite readily. That's a fast text based search from your own server bank, and yeah, that's cool, but it's not my interpretation of AI, per se. (Watson got more of the easier/lower point questions right at the start, which seems to support this idea.) What was more cool was seeing how limited it was at derivation, in comparison to the human mind. I really liked the opening segment where Trebek showed the racks of servers that were attempting to compete with a three pound organic wonder in your own skull.
-
Jeopardy, the game for people with no education! Given that a machine has beaten Kasparov, it is not a surprise that a low brow working class american daytime show should prove simple to beat.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Given that a machine has beaten Kasparov, it is not a surprise that a low brow working class american daytime show should prove simple to beat.
I am not sure about that. Chess is simple compared to language. What would you say if Watson solves your CCC. Given how many people even attempt to solve, let alone solve one successfully.
Yusuf May I help you?
-
I watched it, but was disappointed - I watched the Nova segment on Watson last week and the algorithms used were predictable during the broadcast - give a direct reference to a literary character (for example) regardless of context, and Watson would answer first, seemingly every time. In fact it makes sense. It calculates potential answers, and while ranking can determine that X character is in Y novel (for example) quite readily. That's a fast text based search from your own server bank, and yeah, that's cool, but it's not my interpretation of AI, per se. (Watson got more of the easier/lower point questions right at the start, which seems to support this idea.) What was more cool was seeing how limited it was at derivation, in comparison to the human mind. I really liked the opening segment where Trebek showed the racks of servers that were attempting to compete with a three pound organic wonder in your own skull.
dexterama wrote:
but was disappointed
Really. What disappoint you if you already saw the algorithm on Nova?
dexterama wrote:
nking can determine that X character is in Y novel (for example) quite readily.
But the trick is not in that, the trick on figuring out the question properly.
dexterama wrote:
That's a fast text based search from your own server bank, and yeah, that's cool, but it's not my interpretation of AI, per se. (Watson got more of the easier/lower point questions right at the start, which seems to support this idea.)
Wouldn't that comes after taking a crack on the question.
Yusuf May I help you?
-
Any one watched last night's Man vs Machine Jeopardy? It was incredible, not the show it self, but what IBM managed to accomplish. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20031932-71.html[^] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr7IxQeXr7g&feature=player_embedded[^]
Yusuf May I help you?
Yup, it's an amazing feat and in an ideal world it would be front page news. Actual innovation in the world of computer science. Surely though we'll see more buzz about a slight modification of a prospective new iphone or some other rubbish.
There is no failure only feedback
-
Jeopardy, the game for people with no education! Given that a machine has beaten Kasparov, it is not a surprise that a low brow working class american daytime show should prove simple to beat.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Are you being deliberately obtuse or just flaunting your ignorance? If you truly believe that while still being aware of the technical feat accomplished then you don't deserve to call yourself a programmer. It is one of the most impressive technical feats ever accomplished in computer science. It's in another realm entirely from a chess playing computer which is laughably easy by comparison.
There is no failure only feedback
-
I watched it, but was disappointed - I watched the Nova segment on Watson last week and the algorithms used were predictable during the broadcast - give a direct reference to a literary character (for example) regardless of context, and Watson would answer first, seemingly every time. In fact it makes sense. It calculates potential answers, and while ranking can determine that X character is in Y novel (for example) quite readily. That's a fast text based search from your own server bank, and yeah, that's cool, but it's not my interpretation of AI, per se. (Watson got more of the easier/lower point questions right at the start, which seems to support this idea.) What was more cool was seeing how limited it was at derivation, in comparison to the human mind. I really liked the opening segment where Trebek showed the racks of servers that were attempting to compete with a three pound organic wonder in your own skull.