I'm pretty impressed!
for anyone that is unfamiliar with the story, Watson is an IBM computer. after they did the Deep Blue thing and beat Kasparov at chess, they wanted a bigger challenge. the guys that were involved were at a restaurant mulling over what would be a good challenge for a super computer to beat a human at, and a bunch of patrons crowded in to the bar. upon investigating what the hub bub was, they found it was Ken Jennings doing his famous Jeopardy! run. a-ha! there's the answer....
so this machine is pretty damned impressive at processing natural language and answering questions. er.... at questioning answers, that is.
it's a three day game, and yesterday was the second day with Watson kicking Jennings and Rutter's collective ass.
in between rounds they have little bumpers where the IBM guys talk about the Watson software and capabilities, and how they hope it will help humanity.
Like i said, i'm pretty damned impressed.
So does it actually interpret spoken word, or was somebody offstage typing everything to Watson? My phone does passable speech to text, but nowhere near perfect.
Also does it just do jeopardy, or can it hold a conversation?
How does it do with puns and wordplay?
I'll bet it's GREAT with sarcasm.
it does the wordplay pretty fucking impressively.
idioms, puns, etc...
i don't have a source, but i believe that it interprets the spoken word.
it has a robot finger to press the button.
on the show they show the top three answers that Watson comes up with for each question and it's percent certainty.
it's pretty neat. i suggest catching the last round tonight.
i don't know if it does conversational. i just caught it, and now want to dig deeper into it.
ETA: i don't think it does conversation, as it is developed under the IBM 'DeepQA' project to research AI question answering...
I want to talk to it and make smarmy comments that are indirectly bigoted to robots.
"Wow! You must be pleased with your success, given your handicap!"
one of the big uses they are hoping for it to go towards is medical.
they say that diagnosticians have this huge burden because, not only is there just a shit ton of information out there that they are supposed to be basing their decisions on (which isn't humanly possible to fully utilize), but new shit is being generated at such an incredible rate that it's just not possible for a doctor to keep up. if all this information was in machine readable code, we would already have some system that could parse it all to get better diagnoses and save lives, but it's all in natural language. so now Watson software can parse this mountain of information to help out, they are hoping. (plus, being a machine, it wouldn't be susceptible to the pitfall of diagnostic anchoring like a human doctor is, where they are reticent to change previous diagnosis based on new information that would have led them to a different conclusion had it been there in the first place. that kills people all the time.)
Sorry, I shouldn't joke. I'm very excited about applications for this, and not especially worried that it will become sentient (or anything like it).
:) but the jokes; they write themselves! who can blame, huh?
and seeing as how this is a machine purpose made just for open domain question answering rather than cognizance, i don't think anyone is speculating on sentience, despite the fact that it 'learns' algorithmically and is getting better at doing what it does do. our intelligence is cobbled together from a bunch of different pieces, not just one magic bullet. and this could be a job well done on an important piece of a true AI, though...
it answers all these obscure questions right, and then every so often it makes some answer that is wrong, or doesn't even make sense, and when asked why it blew it, the creators honestly have no idea. as they didn't teach it the answers, they just taught it how to learn.
it's funny that they've got it programmed to speak with some Jeopardy specific idiosyncrasies that make it sound very human for something that's got a text-to-speech voice coming from a monitor with an animated icon for a physical presence.
also it's funny because when it does the daily doubles, it always picks some weird ass amount to wager. "i'll got for twelve seventy six, Alex" on the final round it blew the question (i can't recall what it was) after just trouncing the opponents and getting very few incorrect answers, and then when the wager was revealed, it had only bet $957 despite having a kit of over 35 grand, while the guy in second had only 5000 something...
So, let me get this straight. They built the world's biggest, most badass computer, and it...plays quiz shows.
OH, GODDAMMIT!
I hate people. I fucking hate them. Even the smart ones. ESPECIALLY the smart ones.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 16, 2011, 07:31:00 PM
How does it do with puns and wordplay?
Now there's a challenge. Someone set me up and I'll do a pun-off with ole' Watson.
The DJ on my morning show is crapping himself over this, and talking "Rise of the Machines."
Quote from: Iptuous on February 16, 2011, 08:37:55 PM
:) but the jokes; they write themselves! who can blame, huh?
and seeing as how this is a machine purpose made just for open domain question answering rather than cognizance, i don't think anyone is speculating on sentience, despite the fact that it 'learns' algorithmically and is getting better at doing what it does do. our intelligence is cobbled together from a bunch of different pieces, not just one magic bullet. and this could be a job well done on an important piece of a true AI, though...
it answers all these obscure questions right, and then every so often it makes some answer that is wrong, or doesn't even make sense, and when asked why it blew it, the creators honestly have no idea. as they didn't teach it the answers, they just taught it how to learn.
it's funny that they've got it programmed to speak with some Jeopardy specific idiosyncrasies that make it sound very human for something that's got a text-to-speech voice coming from a monitor with an animated icon for a physical presence.
also it's funny because when it does the daily doubles, it always picks some weird ass amount to wager. "i'll got for twelve seventy six, Alex" on the final round it blew the question (i can't recall what it was) after just trouncing the opponents and getting very few incorrect answers, and then when the wager was revealed, it had only bet $957 despite having a kit of over 35 grand, while the guy in second had only 5000 something...
I caught the last round last night. Over the three days it did pretty much take the two meat-contestants to town. Though, I do have to say that when it flashed the answers on the screen, some of the answers it was mulling were completely non-sensical. And on its last Daily Double it made a tiny wager that was basically inconsequential even though it got the answer correct.
I will finish by adding that the saddest commentary is that of the four entities on the stage, including Alex Trebek, Watson probably had the most personality and character.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 02:29:05 AM
So, let me get this straight. They built the world's biggest, most badass computer, and it...plays quiz shows.
OH, GODDAMMIT!
I hate people. I fucking hate them. Even the smart ones. ESPECIALLY the smart ones.
Two reasons. One, it's an interesting way to field test it. And, two, it's three days of free advertising, not even counting the fact that people are going to be talking about the thing for months.
At least they didn't name it Hal.
Here's (http://www.slate.com/id/2285035/) a Slate article about how it would be more impressive to teach Watson how to play no-limit Texas Hold 'Em against multiple opponents.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 17, 2011, 02:20:45 PM
Here's (http://www.slate.com/id/2285035/) a Slate article about how it would be more impressive to teach Watson how to play no-limit Texas Hold 'Em against multiple opponents.
Call me silly, call me the product of too many years of science fiction, but the thought of teaching a computer it's okay to lie (even in the context of a game) gives me a bit of a wiggy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 02:29:05 AM
So, let me get this straight. They built the world's biggest, most badass computer, and it...plays quiz shows.
OH, GODDAMMIT!
I hate people. I fucking hate them. Even the smart ones. ESPECIALLY the smart ones.
I tend to agree with this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 02:29:05 AM
So, let me get this straight. They built the world's biggest, most badass computer, and it...plays quiz shows.
OH, GODDAMMIT!
I hate people. I fucking hate them. Even the smart ones. ESPECIALLY the smart ones.
I see this as a pretty damned useful project. Yeah playing quiz shows won't accomplish much, but the same skills it needs to play quiz shows are the skills it needs to make a more functional research database (I believe the long term goal of this project is a medical database?).
Needs a little more refining though, just judging by some of the answers it was contemplating for some of the questions. I could just see it not understanding a request and recommending an amputation instead of a couple of Advils.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 18, 2011, 07:05:28 PM
Needs a little more refining though, just judging by some of the answers it was contemplating for some of the questions. I could just see it not understanding a request and recommending an amputation instead of a couple of Advils.
Better it screwed up on a game show, then.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2011, 06:57:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 02:29:05 AM
So, let me get this straight. They built the world's biggest, most badass computer, and it...plays quiz shows.
OH, GODDAMMIT!
I hate people. I fucking hate them. Even the smart ones. ESPECIALLY the smart ones.
I see this as a pretty damned useful project. Yeah playing quiz shows won't accomplish much, but the same skills it needs to play quiz shows are the skills it needs to make a more functional research database (I believe the long term goal of this project is a medical database?).
Sometimes it's okay to just shut up and let people rage. Just saying.
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 02:35:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 17, 2011, 02:20:45 PM
Here's (http://www.slate.com/id/2285035/) a Slate article about how it would be more impressive to teach Watson how to play no-limit Texas Hold 'Em against multiple opponents.
Call me silly, call me the product of too many years of science fiction, but the thought of teaching a computer it's okay to lie (even in the context of a game) gives me a bit of a wiggy.
10 PRINT "P AND NOT P"
I was just listening to an interview on NPR with Marshall brain, and in conversation he mentioned Watson and how big of an achievement it is. In passing he said how it would be used for medicine, and for law, and for......
Wait.
Law?
I can't believe I hadn't really considered that much!
This, and similar software could have a Tremendous effect on how we do law...
It would actually make it possible to keep track of the tens to hundreds of thousands of laws on the books...
I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 23, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
It would actually make it possible to keep track of the tens to hundreds of thousands of laws on the books...
I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing.
The Computer does not make mistakes.
To go against the Computer is treason.
Treason is punishable by death.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 23, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
It would actually make it possible to keep track of the tens to hundreds of thousands of laws on the books...
I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing.
wouldn't it also point out the inconsistencies and superflousness in the laws?
it seems to me that if laws are going to be comprehensible, complete, and fair, then they should be able to be completely parsed.
as it stands the lawyers that run this show can't even do it.
how can the average citizen expect to get a fair shake?
what meaning is the 'rule of law' in that circumstance?
if we have an automated system that can make the immense pile of laws accessible to the individual, and illuminate the current absurdity of it, then i don't know that it would hurt...
seems that it would act as an impetus to make a more elegant system.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 23, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
It would actually make it possible to keep track of the tens to hundreds of thousands of laws on the books...
I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing.
Naw, they'd have named it KAFKA.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 23, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 23, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
It would actually make it possible to keep track of the tens to hundreds of thousands of laws on the books...
I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing.
wouldn't it also point out the inconsistencies and superflousness in the laws?
it seems to me that if laws are going to be comprehensible, complete, and fair, then they should be able to be completely parsed.
as it stands the lawyers that run this show can't even do it.
how can the average citizen expect to get a fair shake?
what meaning is the 'rule of law' in that circumstance?
if we have an automated system that can make the immense pile of laws accessible to the individual, and illuminate the current absurdity of it, then i don't know that it would hurt...
seems that it would act as an impetus to make a more elegant system.
Law is a human institution.
The day I allow a computer to decide my legal status is the day I go postal. EOS.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on February 23, 2011, 09:15:32 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 23, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
It would actually make it possible to keep track of the tens to hundreds of thousands of laws on the books...
I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing.
The Computer does not make mistakes.
To go against the Computer is treason.
Treason is punishable by death.
The Computer wants you to be happy.
If you aren't happy, you may be used as reactor shielding.
Won't this be fun?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 23, 2011, 09:59:49 PM
Law is a human institution.
The day I allow a computer to decide my legal status is the day I go postal. EOS.
sure, it's a human institution. we make these laws and declare that we will follow them as a rule, unless they are proven to be broken, in which case we are supposed to fix them.
the computer isn't creating law.
the computer isn't even 'thinking' about your legal status.
it's just parsing the huge pile of shit that we accept as the current rule set.
it's the law itself that determines your legal status, with the humans that created it supposedly acting as a safety net to intervene by amending the laws if necessary.
how will automated parsing of the laws change that?
i mean, i know what you're saying. human nature is to take the easier path, and reliance upon a computer to dole out automated 'justice' would be a pitfall. but right now, we're doing the same thing, except in place of the computer, we have lawyers and all the concomitant greed, politics, and general nastiness that we all know and hate....
Quote from: Iptuous on February 23, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 23, 2011, 09:07:25 PM
It would actually make it possible to keep track of the tens to hundreds of thousands of laws on the books...
I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing.
wouldn't it also point out the inconsistencies and superflousness in the laws?
Anybody whose spent 5 minutes studying the law should understand that.
Seriously, because of an oversight by the state legislature, its technically a felony to own five or more computers in Utah, at least according to those judges that believe in laws as written instead of laws as intended. I would rather not let prosecutors find out about this shit easily when they go on a witch hunt.
soooo...
it would be better to leave the labyrinthine law set that we have in place hoping that lawyers are not clever enough to find out about the nasty bits?
i don't understand opposition to a tool that would allow anyone, in plain language to parse the mountain of laws that exist, or that could shine a spotlight on the inelegant nature of our system...
also...
it's here.
it's now.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 02:29:05 AM
So, let me get this straight. They built the world's biggest, most badass computer, and it...plays quiz shows.
OH, GODDAMMIT!
I hate people. I fucking hate them. Even the smart ones. ESPECIALLY the smart ones.
Deep Blue (or at least part of it) ended up working for an airline company, I believe.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 24, 2011, 01:32:33 AM
soooo...
it would be better to leave the labyrinthine law set that we have in place hoping that lawyers are not clever enough to find out about the nasty bits?
i don't understand opposition to a tool that would allow anyone, in plain language to parse the mountain of laws that exist, or that could shine a spotlight on the inelegant nature of our system...
also...
it's here.
it's now.
Not just anyone would be allowed access. It'd get the same kind of paywall PACER (a database of court rulings, somewhat critical for figuring out case law) does.
Are court rulings not public domain?
Sure, but the database that the court rulings are kept in is still locked up tight. People are allowed to republish and all, but its only a fraction of the case law.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 16, 2011, 07:23:01 PM
I'm pretty impressed!
for anyone that is unfamiliar with the story, Watson is an IBM computer. after they did the Deep Blue thing and beat Kasparov at chess, they wanted a bigger challenge. the guys that were involved were at a restaurant mulling over what would be a good challenge for a super computer to beat a human at, and a bunch of patrons crowded in to the bar. upon investigating what the hub bub was, they found it was Ken Jennings doing his famous Jeopardy! run. a-ha! there's the answer....
so this machine is pretty damned impressive at processing natural language and answering questions. er.... at questioning answers, that is.
it's a three day game, and yesterday was the second day with Watson kicking Jennings and Rutter's collective ass.
in between rounds they have little bumpers where the IBM guys talk about the Watson software and capabilities, and how they hope it will help humanity.
Like i said, i'm pretty damned impressed.
Thanks for that OP. IIRC trebek said they were going to send the clue to Watson via text. I suppose that if they were going to do that vice "through spoken language" they clue should have been sent after trebek finished reading it out loud.
Also, Ken looked pissed the whole game. Maybe he was intimidated by the machine or the
producers...
Quote from: Rumckle on February 24, 2011, 03:47:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 02:29:05 AM
So, let me get this straight. They built the world's biggest, most badass computer, and it...plays quiz shows.
OH, GODDAMMIT!
I hate people. I fucking hate them. Even the smart ones. ESPECIALLY the smart ones.
Deep Blue (or at least part of it) ended up working for an airline company, I believe.
Um they took Deep Blue apart to prevent Kasparov from getting a rematch? (Check Wikipedia, there's some interesting bits about semi-foul play on IBM's part).
Also about Watson. First, it didn't do voice recognition. The question appears as text on a screen for the candidates to see just as the presenter starts speaking it. Watson uses the text.
Second, it's just an IBM marketing gimmick. Apparently it's easier to check if a possible answer might just be correct, than to generate suitable candidate answers. This explains the nonsensical top 3 considerations the machine makes. The "intelligence" comes from an "answer generating" module and a "sort by most probably correct" module.
Sure it's a wonderful project, but I'm not sure how good it'd be at other tasks.
Like Derren Brown's mentalisms, a lot of the "magic" comes from good showmanship.
Regardless, to second Ippy, yes I am impressed as well.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 16, 2011, 07:38:30 PM
I want to talk to it and make smarmy comments that are indirectly bigoted to robots.
"Wow! You must be pleased with your success, given your handicap!"
I laughed aloud.