tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post5001531996530276342..comments2023-11-02T10:58:05.355-04:00Comments on IBM Research: Knowing what it knows: selected nuances of Watson's strategyChristopher Sciaccahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00780044156231457785noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-74862115881308056592011-06-18T23:15:01.581-04:002011-06-18T23:15:01.581-04:00The meaning of "intelligence" and even t...The meaning of "intelligence" and even the presence of "intelligence", in my opinion, is just a supposition. I would like to think, there is no such thing as "intelligence" just as there is no such thing as "reality"; Both Searle's Chinese Room problem and the philosophical position of a "mind" are by and large mere choices and outcome of choices with out any "intentionality" to start with.Bala Subramanianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15603337640803924494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-38961552637297779282011-04-05T03:01:12.962-04:002011-04-05T03:01:12.962-04:00I would be interested in knowing these researchers...I would be interested in knowing these researchers response to Searle's Chinese Room problem.<br /><br />What we need now is a good open source voice recognition program with speech corpora - ala CMU Sphinx or something similar - and a good TTS engine. (Remember the good old days of ViaVoice?)<br /><br />Also, has IBM thought of using a humanoid robotics platform for Watson's UI?Galenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07773316367734155814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-82795962294692218462011-03-06T12:31:06.089-05:002011-03-06T12:31:06.089-05:00Excelente trabajo, gracias por todo!Excelente trabajo, gracias por todo!policulturalhttp://policultural.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-16737323911266675632011-03-04T12:03:59.973-05:002011-03-04T12:03:59.973-05:00What fantasy football draft strategy do you use?What fantasy football draft strategy do you use?Brad Fallonhttp://www.facebook.com/bradfallonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-44089268143482184972011-02-19T07:48:01.613-05:002011-02-19T07:48:01.613-05:00want to know about watson??????????????want to know about watson??????????????nousihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997069528120661732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-69963325599484379142011-02-19T00:20:38.524-05:002011-02-19T00:20:38.524-05:00I think it picks the easiest question in a categor...I think it picks the easiest question in a category to help it establish an initial weighting to give the "clue" in the category title(how relevant to the actual answer) I would assume the weighting updates as more questions/answers are revealed and the weighting factor may even influence the weighting factor of other categories on the board...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11162609806188778481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-87794814767057124482011-02-18T15:54:29.321-05:002011-02-18T15:54:29.321-05:00If Watson could lose by buzzing in and answering i...<i>If Watson could lose by buzzing in and answering incorrectly - couldn't he lose by an opponent answering correctly ?</i><br /><br />Watson's incorrect response could be followed by an opponent's correct response (unless both opponents already have provided incorrect responses, in which case your scenario doesn't apply). Conversely, if Watson does nothing, the potential damage is halved. (An opponent's score can increase, but Watson's score won't decrease by the same amount.)<br /><br />The scenario described in the article is one in which it's mathematically impossible for Watson to lose unless it responds incorrectly <b>and</b> an opponent responds correctly. If an opponent's correct response alone would cause Watson to lose, Watson will rely on its confidence (as usual).David Levynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-72807152170849740392011-02-17T17:17:29.647-05:002011-02-17T17:17:29.647-05:00Please view the replay from today's TEDtalk wi...Please view the replay from today's TEDtalk with members of the IBM Watson team for more information on Watson - http://www.ted.com/webcast/archive/event/ibmwatson<br /><br />Kevin<br />EditorKevin Winterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16239982867762776783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-51325641713653689102011-02-17T13:14:17.217-05:002011-02-17T13:14:17.217-05:00As broadband expands and gets faster, the text bas...As broadband expands and gets faster, the text based information that Watson relies on will diminish. IBM should work with blind community to give youtube the "narrative network" treatment and with deaf to expand closed captioning to other video services. Then harvest the closed captioning and descriptions.tulsatvlisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00953648666947853807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-80970380935461572582011-02-17T10:56:16.288-05:002011-02-17T10:56:16.288-05:002 comments:
1. Agree with niss and others. It ...2 comments:<br /><br />1. Agree with niss and others. It certainly gives an advantage to Watson, since humans naturally will tend to wait until they hear the question - or at least be somewhat distracted by the reading. Granted, we can point to plenty of disadvantages for the computer too, but the 'start of processing time' advantage clearly goes to Watson - and is probably significant for many of the clues. Since the real intent was to show if Watson can 'think' better, it would be nice to null out (at least some of) this obvious I/O advantage. <br /><br />2. It was interesting to see that many times Watson's 2nd or 3rd choices were wacky. Good fodder to tweak algorithms, to winnow answers down more reliably into the right realm. It would be interesting to hear the Watson team's comments on why the 1st-3rd choices were so disparate at times.<br /><br />Thanks - great accomplishment and good entertainment.Chris R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-69066083510829914442011-02-17T09:21:15.126-05:002011-02-17T09:21:15.126-05:00I think IBM and Watson has done a very fine job.
...I think IBM and Watson has done a very fine job.<br /><br />But in order to get a more fair competition, Watson should get get the question only after it has been read aloud. The humans are in a way disturbed by receiving both text and sound at the same time. Especially on long questions Watson has an answer before reading aloud has stoped and at same time the humans has hardly got through their initial fuss and stress. In this situation Watson is to good and win almost every time.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16559540444303198866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-73112341209295354512011-02-17T00:55:48.748-05:002011-02-17T00:55:48.748-05:00Fantastic comments.
Please keep posting your comme...Fantastic comments.<br />Please keep posting your comments and questions. We will be using some of them at the TED.com LIVE event “Final Jeopardy and the Future of IBM Watson” event tomorrow 2/17 at 11:30 am ET.<br />Please tune in at http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/593.<br />Thank you,<br />Kevin Winterfield<br />EditorKevin Winterfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16239982867762776783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-88999924892075377182011-02-16T23:02:09.061-05:002011-02-16T23:02:09.061-05:00What were some of the top data sources stored in 1...What were some of the top data sources stored in 15 Petabytes of disk storage for Watson? How are they stored for Watson to search them so fast?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-88110216296019016422011-02-16T22:01:06.930-05:002011-02-16T22:01:06.930-05:00By one intuition, Watson should perform almost as ...By one intuition, Watson should perform almost as well, if not as well, on high-value questions than on low-value ones. The questions are harder, not because they are harder to understand, but because the responses are more obscure. Watson should be good on obscure data, though it would find fewer graphs to confirm a response there perhaps. Have you found this to be the case?Brad Templetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06518625048611734018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-45859754878894116012011-02-16T19:53:10.432-05:002011-02-16T19:53:10.432-05:00ThirdJohnnie,
Read Dr. David Gondek's post he...ThirdJohnnie,<br /><br />Read Dr. David Gondek's post here:<br /><br /><a href="http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-watson-sees-hears-and-speaks-to.html" rel="nofollow">How Watson "sees," "hears," and "speaks" to play Jeopardy!</a><br /><br />And this excellent Wired interview:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/ibm-watson-speed/" rel="nofollow">IBM Watson Scientist: Speed Matters, But So Do Accuracy, Intuition</a>munchnstufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17193276710047289164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-76974689950772763152011-02-16T18:42:24.159-05:002011-02-16T18:42:24.159-05:00Here is a question: if the humans gave up on tryin...Here is a question: if the humans gave up on trying to think of an answer and just concentrated on ringing the buzzer as quickly as possible, would they have a chance to answer any more questions? If they would not have more chances, then it is pretty clear that the contest is over reaction time, not question answering. I am amazed at Watson, its answers are incredible, but I'm not sure the contest is exactly what it appears to beUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08437780082857024509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-5226243250937067722011-02-16T17:22:37.778-05:002011-02-16T17:22:37.778-05:00"Watson is able to process the text question ..."Watson is able to process the text question instantaneously..."<br /><br />"The fact that the human contestants have to read or listen to the clue puts them at a significant disadvantage."<br /><br />======<br /><br />HA! xD<br /><br />It's amazing to me that so many people can believe such a silly thing!<br /><br />Computers have the advantage when it comes to READING?! Since when??<br /><br />One of the major accomplishments of Watson in the first place is that it can "read" and "understand" such a wide variety of Jeopardy questions (or answers)... AT. ALL.<br /><br />Just "understanding" the incredible subtleties in a *HUMAN* language (and Jeopardy questions/answers, in particular) requires an enormously sophisticated and complex AI (ahem, *NON-HUMAN*) computer system. I, for one, am astonished that IBM was able to do it.<br /><br />Kudos to the entire Watson team for the amazing job that you have done!<br /><br />[For the record, no one can buzz in to answer until the question (pardon, "answer") has been read by Alex. So the fact that Watson receives the question/answer as an electronic text file is completely irrelevant. As IBM has stated elsewhere, humans actually have an advantage over Watson because they can anticipate the exact moment when Alex will finish speaking and their buzzers will be enabled.]munchnstufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17193276710047289164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-72718138517197474562011-02-16T17:06:45.049-05:002011-02-16T17:06:45.049-05:00With regard to:
"The threshold can change sub...With regard to:<br /><b>"The threshold can change substantially towards the end of a game. For example, Watson will lower the threshold if it gives a higher chance to win or, for example, to avoid a statistical lockout.<br />Analogously, if Watson is leading and its only chance of losing a game is to buzz in and respond incorrectly, it will not buzz in, no matter how confident."</b><br /><br /><br />If Watson could lose by buzzing in and answering incorrectly - couldn't he lose by an opponent answering correctly ?<br />It would seem that buzzing in would be the best strategy with Jennings/Rutter, caliber opponents..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-5403306325872906492011-02-16T16:50:08.324-05:002011-02-16T16:50:08.324-05:00To answer your question (again from Wikipedia):
Or...To answer your question (again from Wikipedia):<br />Originally Watson buzzed in electronically, but Jeopardy! requested that it physically press a button, as the human contestants would. Even with a robotic "finger" pressing the buzzer, Watson remained faster than its human competitors. Jennings noted, "If you're trying to win on the show, the buzzer is all," and that Watson "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." Also, Watson could avoid the time-penalty for accidentally buzzing in too early, because it was electronically notified when to buzz, whereas the human contestants had to anticipate the right moment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-56190671988299991202011-02-16T16:33:15.677-05:002011-02-16T16:33:15.677-05:00How does Watson know when to buzz in? I thought t...How does Watson know when to buzz in? I thought that everyone has to wait for a 'guy in the back' to 'release' the buzzers. If Watson isn't hearing the question, but is told when it is possible to buzz in, but the humans have to rely on reflexes as to when Alex finishes the questions, the contest is skewed quite favorably to the computer. (I would assume that both Brad and Ken would attempt to hit the buzzers about 80-90% of the time.Dr. Doomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504856313446970221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-35974269230885270102011-02-16T16:21:05.981-05:002011-02-16T16:21:05.981-05:00My first blush was along the lines of what Anonymo...My first blush was along the lines of what Anonymous said above... however, consider that Watson has to then take that clue it *read* faster ... and perform natural language parsing on it. Its reading speed is not the important factor here.<br /><br />That being said, I could see giving the humans a head start and see how much of a difference it makes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18202830573232043611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-31899802392270381642011-02-16T16:01:00.807-05:002011-02-16T16:01:00.807-05:00About the computer being able to buzz in faster th...About the computer being able to buzz in faster than a human because of reading time: (From Wikipedia) Contestants must wait until the host finishes reading the clue before ringing in. Ringing in before this point locks the contestant out for one fourth of a second. Lights mounted around the game board illuminate to indicate when contestants may ring in, and the contestant has five seconds to offer a response. Additionally, a tone sounds in conjunction with the illuminated lights on episodes that feature visually-impaired contestants.<br /><br />Before Trebek's second season, contestants were able to ring in at any time after the clue had been revealed, and a buzzer would sound whenever someone rang in. According to Trebek, the buzzer sound was "distracting to the viewers" and sometimes presented problems, as contestants would inadvertently ring in too soon, or ring in so quickly that by the time he finished reading the clue, the contestant's five-second limit had expired. He also said that, by not allowing anyone to ring in until the clue was finished, home viewers could play along more easily, and faster contestants would be less likely to dominate the gameAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-16779242379342362782011-02-16T14:47:52.595-05:002011-02-16T14:47:52.595-05:00Alan nailed it. The fact that the human contestant...Alan nailed it. The fact that the human contestants have to read or listen to the clue puts them at a significant disadvantage. The technology behind Watson is incredible but the Jeopardy Challenge is essentially a PR stunt. There is simply no way for a human competitor to beat Watson to the buzzer with the consistency needed to actually have a chance to win.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-64302662549702985592011-02-16T12:03:54.730-05:002011-02-16T12:03:54.730-05:00Watson is able to process the text question instan...Watson is able to process the text question instantaneously, while the contestants have to read the question and are actually hindered in processing the question by the announcer speaking the question aloud. It would be a fairer contest to allow the contestants at least a second to read the question (without the announcer).Alan Hollanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09498691009791134026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3821464279005499761.post-79607987569627488492011-02-16T11:48:18.887-05:002011-02-16T11:48:18.887-05:00I wonder if there's some disadvantage to Ken a...I wonder if there's some disadvantage to Ken and Brad because of human IO bottlenecks. From the show, most human contestants respond after Alex stated the clue.virtualhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13017331657796808226noreply@blogger.com