IBM's Question-Answering System "Watson" Revisited

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM's Question-Answering System "Watson" Revisited

Posted by timothy on Thursday June 17, 2010 @05:05PM from the can-only-give-you-answers dept.

religious freak writes "IBM has created and made the question answering algorithm, Watson, available online. Watson has competed in and won a majority of (mock) matches against humans in Jeopardy. Watson does not connect to the Internet to answer his questions, but rather seeks answers using many different algorithms then employs a ranking algorithm to choose the best answer." We mentioned Watson last year as well.

170 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I'll take Ken Jennings for the block... by LostCluster · 2010-06-17 17:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Part of the deal with Jeopardy! is that they will have as part of the 2010-2011 season be a televised episode in which record-breaking champ Ken Jennings will play against Watson, with a to-be-named-later champion in the third slot. This has been in the works since 2009, but the staff of the show finally thinks the system is ready for it's televised match.
One key factor is how the human behavior will change when prize money is at stake. Jennings has proven in numerous appearances on GSN that he's willing to play in any test of knowledge and the fact that he knew he was Jeopardy's first millionaire in regular season play didn't stop his long Jeopardy! run. He also studied for the show, particularly alcoholic beverages (which he doesn't drink) because he had seen the Potent Potables category on TV.
But, what about that player-to-be-named later? Will they know more than the grad students... and play the game not as if it's for points but real dollars?
1. Re:I'll take Ken Jennings for the block... by paeanblack · 2010-06-17 22:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But, what about that player-to-be-named later?
  They're fucked.
2. Re:I'll take Ken Jennings for the block... by Dachannien · 2010-06-17 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  But, what about that player-to-be-named later?
  Sean Connery always wins.
  "I'll take Anal Bum Cover for $200!"
3. Re:I'll take Ken Jennings for the block... by benthurston27 · 2010-06-20 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't even take Ken Jennings, I just beat Watson 42-16 and Ken Jennings would crush me at Jeopardy.
Tune in a half-hour early... by LostCluster · 2010-06-17 17:07 · Score: 5, Funny

and see students from the MIT Robotics Lab test their machine that they say can avoid the Bankrupts and find that Million Dollar wedge on the Wheel of Fortune!
1. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by LostCluster · 2010-06-17 17:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Elsewhere on the TV dial...
  H&R Block's mainframe system has computed that all of the the offers on Deal or No Deal are bunk, you're always statistically better off sticking with your case through most of the game... but they're still unsure whether you should take Howie's offer to switch your case with the last one left in the hands of the models.
  A tragedy as the Stanford-built computer made to play Russian Roulette was caught not in the lead when time was called in the second round, and was dropped by the random must-drop-somebody spin. It suffered the series first fatal injury as the fall broke it's hard disk. It will not be rebult.
  Amazon.com's entry onto The Price is Right was disqualified from the Human-vs.-Machine Day event after it was learned that it was powered by Mechanical Turk.
  Priceline.com's robot blundered today by deciding to keep the trip to Spain when it declined to play the Big Deal, and had to watch a woman dressed as Clown get the new Chevy Volt on today's Let's Make of the Deal.
2. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by michaelhood · 2010-06-17 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  H&R Block's mainframe system has computed that all of the the offers on Deal or No Deal are bunk, you're always statistically better off sticking with your case through most of the game... but they're still unsure whether you should take Howie's offer to switch your case with the last one left in the hands of the models.
  That's interesting to me for a couple reasons.
  I loathe that show. I'm not part of the anti-pop-TV brigade, I just find it incredibly boring. I tell my wife it's like watching someone throw dice against the wall for 42 minutes (DVR!), interspersed with crap dialogue.
  Having admittedly never thought about the last two cases scenario (the one you started with, and a final model's case). I would have thought that the probability maths behind this would be pretty simple.. do you have a link for that H&R block conclusion? I'd find their reasoning for it being unclear interesting.
  My math is as follows.
  - You pick one of the [26] cases at the beginning. Instead of focusing on amounts let's call one a "winning" case (top prize), all the others losers.
  - This means you have a 25/26 (P=0.96) chance of selecting a loser.
  - If you open the 24 cases on the stage, and one remains in addition to the one you're holding, and you haven't 'cleared' (opened) the winning case.. you're now left with a 1/2 (P=.50) chance at picking the winner.
  This is part of the reason the show bores the crap out of me. :)
3. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by Ambiguous+Puzuma · 2010-06-17 22:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't care for the show myself, but don't forget about the nonlinear utility function of money. As an illustration, given that I'm comfortable but not wealthy:
  If given a choice between a guaranteed $400 and a 50-50 shot at $1,000, I'd choose the latter. The money wouldn't have a major impact on my life, so I'd go for the option with the best expected return.
  If given a choice between a guaranteed $400,000 and a 50-50 shot at $1,000,000, I'd take the guaranteed $400,000, even though the expected return of the latter situation is $500,000. $400,000 would give me a substantial amount of freedom and security. An additional $600,000 beyond that would be nice but would provide relatively few benefits compared to the initial $400,000.
  Now, if I were already a millionaire, I'd most likely choose the 50-50 shot at $1,000,000.
4. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by halcyon1234 · 2010-06-18 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  A good formula for "Expected Happiness", from the Wizard of Odds (4th question down):
  
  When the prizes become life-changing amounts, the wise player should play conservatively at the expense of maximizing expected value. A good strategy should be to maximize expected happiness. A good function to measure happiness I think is the log of your total wealth. Let's take a person with existing wealth of $100,000 who is presented with two cases of $0.01 and $1,000,000. By taking "no deal" the expected happiness is 0.5*log($100,000.01) + 0.5*log($1,100,000) = 5.520696. Let b be the bank offer where the player is indifferent to taking it.
  log(b) = 5.520696 b = 105.520696 b = $331,662.50.
  So this hypothetical player should be indifferent at a bank offer of $331,662.50. The lesser your wealth going into the game the more conservatively you should play.
  
  --
  UTF-8: There and Back Again
5. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by tlhIngan · 2010-06-18 03:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  and see students from the MIT Robotics Lab test their machine that they say can avoid the Bankrupts and find that Million Dollar wedge on the Wheel of Fortune
  With a little empirical testing, it should be possible. Bankrupts are at known positions on the wheel, and you know the starting location. If you can model the physics of the wheel well enough, you can easily avoid them. (Unless the wheel has external influences - e.g., a brake and a motor that randomly apply and remove energy from the wheel making it less predictable).
  Million dollar wedge is a bit more difficult, but given such wedges are covered up by something else, it may be possible to detect them looking at the high-def (and high-def 3D stream). Maybe during a few spins it may be possible to detect what's underneath it and detect the coloring.
6. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by HiThere · 2010-06-18 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  You're forgetting taxes.
  That $400,000 is probably closer to $200,000, and it means you're going to need to fight off a simply incredible number of get-rich-quick artists.
  Being comfortably well off is extremely desirable. Being quite rich has lots of good points. Winning a huge monetary prize is usually quite destructive. (I'm not sure, though, that $400,000 counts as huge. That's less than the cost of a good house.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by nine-times · 2010-06-18 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  - You pick one of the [26] cases at the beginning. Instead of focusing on amounts let's call one a "winning" case (top prize), all the others losers.
  This is a bad approach, since the amounts have a lot to do with it. The amounts mean that there isn't a "winning case" and 25 "losers", but instead 26 cases of various degrees of "win".
  Also, the offers are some kind of function of the average of the remaining cases (haven't actually checked mathematically, but I'm sure it amounts to something like that), so which "losing cases" you eliminate changes your strategy drastically.
  In short, the best strategy for the game is not to "pick the winning case", but rather to "eliminate the lowest-scoring cases" enough to drive the "deal" price up, and then take the deal. It's very rare that the game makes it all the way to the last 2 cases, and when it does, you're probably better off taking the deal instead of trying to pick a case.
  For example, if you got it down to the $1mil and the $0.01 cases, the deal will be around $500k. The smart money is on pocketing the $500k rather than risking $1mil on a 50/50 bet. To try for the $1mil at that point is equivalent to having $500k in the bank and betting it all on a coin toss.
  None of this really argues with your point about it being "like watching someone throw dice against the wall". It's a game of chance with very little strategy. However, with a lot of these shows, the point *is* the crap dialog that's interspersed with the game. They're trying to build a narrative where you're interested in the outcome in order to get you invested in the tension over whether they'll win.
8. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by Hatta · 2010-06-18 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  This sounds a lot like the Monty Hall problem. Turns out that the probability is not 50/50. It's always better to switch.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
9. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by Hatta · 2010-06-18 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Winning a huge monetary prize is usually quite destructive.
  There's a solution for that. Don't be a douchebag. I realize this is difficult for a large proportion of society.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
10. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by inio · 2010-06-18 06:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Don't the same forces at work in the Monty Hall Problem make it not 50/50, or does the fact that the eliminated "losers" were randomly selected without foreknowledge that they're losers make it 50/50?
11. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by sexconker · 2010-06-18 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  I've watched the Wheel for ages.
  For a "normal" spin:
  A woman will spin it for a little less than a single revolution.
  A man will spin it for a little more than a single revolution.
  Your best barometer of whether or not to spin harder or softer is what happened last time, of course, but you can also try to listen for a certain pitch before you release the wheel.
  Of course, they put you above the wheel and make you reach over your scoreboard in an attempt to limit your control. I believe they also have rules against windups (reaching down, grabbing a peg, rotating the wheel back, then spinning the wheel).
  The Wheel of Fortune wheel is really predictable. There's very little variation in results when you compare it to a more free-floating wheel like the one on the the Price is Right or the Big Spin. These shows encourage exaggerated spins because they're exciting and give a chance to small talk. Wheel of Fortune limits big spins and controlled spins because if people had wasted more time or had more control, they'd be left with nothing but multi player hangman with people trying to solve the wheel more than they solve the puzzle.
12. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by TheScorpion420 · 2010-06-18 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think its more like, don't develop a coke habit.
  
  --
  If you pay your taxes you support terrorism!
13. Re:Tune in a half-hour early... by btcoal · 2010-06-18 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  That first bet of .5 probability to win $1000 has a HUGE variance, and is in fact infinite compared to the variance of 100% chance of $400.
  If you said I get to play this game a million times I would definitely take the 50-50 chance in both cases. But expected value if statistically meaningless with a sample size of one (that is, playing the game just once).
  This, I find to be the main fallacy with the recently published popular behavioral finance examples.
Well, this is no good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 17:09 · Score: 0

Why can't I ask it my own questions?
1. Re:Well, this is no good by LostCluster · 2010-06-17 17:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Why can't I ask it my own questions?
  Because, like Deep Blue at its time, it requires much more computing power than today's typical web site or PC. Chess has finally been solved to the point that there's now unbeatable AIs available to the average user (assuming it gets to move first) but Jeopardy! hasn't, which is why this is novel. It'll take several more years of computing power increases before we'll be playing this AI on our home video game systems.
2. Re:Well, this is no good by Quackers_McDuck · 2010-06-17 17:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Chess has finally been solved to the point that there's now unbeatable AIs available to the average user (assuming it gets to move first)
  There are no unbeatable AIs for chess yet, that would imply chess is a solved game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess). It doesn't make much of a difference who moves first, either.
3. Re:Well, this is no good by Kitkoan · 2010-06-17 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because different problems require different ways to answer them. 'Watson' seems to be able to handle information based questions by searching for certain pieces of information based on what it already knowns (so no true 'problem solving by the looks of it, still reading the article), but by the sounds of it, it can't handle 'visual' questions (like looking at a banana and an orange and telling the difference). That takes a different type of problem solving. 'Lucy' on the other hand was supposed to be able to handle how to tell the difference between items without resorting to backup information which seems to be completely different then what 'Watson' can do, but 'Lucy' couldn't ever answer the questions 'Watson' can.
  
  --
  Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
4. Re:Well, this is no good by Animats · 2010-06-17 17:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Chess has finally been solved to the point that there's now unbeatable AIs available to the average user (assuming it gets to move first)...
  No, checkers has been solved to that point. The solution is available online. Perfect play leads to a draw.
  Computer chess is merely at the point that if you haven't been on the cover of Chess Life, you're going to get trounced. Even if you have, you're going to lose more than you win. The current situation is that Deep Rybka 2010 has an ELO rating around 3150. That's running on a 4-core AMD-64 desktop machine. The all-time human record is 2851, which Garry Kasparov had in 1999-2000.
5. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-17 18:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is a given, since there aren't even any AIs yet, so there could be no unbeatable AIs.
  
  I admit that as a programmer this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. But people: computers are NOT "intelligent". At all. They do what they do by performing the same specific instructions over and over and over again. That's what computers are good at. Granted, they do more complex things today, but that's just due to clever programming and the ability to do many more instructions many times faster than before (i.e., better hardware and software). But that's just quantity. What it lacks is quality. No matter how clever a combination of processors and program may seem at some specific task, it totally lacks the quality we call "intelligence". To call anything running on a computer today "intelligent" is to undermine the word itself. You might as well call a rock an airplane.
  
  Researchers in this field 20 years ago would have been appalled at what people today refer to as "AI". Of course they would also be appalled at the lack of progress in that same field, but that's another matter.
  
  I am not pointing fingers at the posters here. They are just using "AI" in the way it has become commonly used. But that is an erroneous use and I would be happy to see the practice stop. It gives people the wrong idea.
  
  If we (erroneously) call what occurs today "intelligent", then if something ever really did become intelligent, what would we call it?
6. Re:Well, this is no good by MichaelSmith · 2010-06-17 18:25 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  By your definition I don't believe we are intelligent. Intelligence (and sentience) are made up to justify our treatment of entities we put in other categories. We used to treat black people the way we currently treat animals, and the justification was much the same.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
7. Re:Well, this is no good by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  If we (erroneously) call what occurs today "intelligent", then if something ever really did become intelligent, what would we call it?
  Skynet?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
8. Re:Well, this is no good by newcastlejon · 2010-06-17 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  Are dogs intelligent? What about insects? Or plants?
  Intelligence isn't a discrete property, nor is sapience, which I think is what you actually mean. Anyway, it's called Artificial intelligence, i.e. not real, and to answer your final question I'm inclined towards the Synthetic Intelligence moniker.
  P.S. to coin a phrase: do planes fly?
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
9. Re:Well, this is no good by Vellmont · 2010-06-17 18:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To call anything running on a computer today "intelligent" is to undermine the word itself. You might as well call a rock an airplane.
  
  I didn't realize "intelligent" had such a clear definition that you could really say anything meaningful about whether a machine was "intelligent" or not.
  
  If we (erroneously) call what occurs today "intelligent", then if something ever really did become intelligent, what would we call it?
  
  I don't know.. perhaps we'd make a bit of progress and realize that "intelligence" isn't some nice single concept to just nail down like mass that we can all agree on what is is and isn't. We might even come up with 10 very different words to describe something we might now use the word intelligence about, since we might actually have a better grasp on what it actually is. If you ask me, intelligence is more about human ego than any real hard definitions. In many peoples minds computers can never be intelligent because it would bring our self opinions down a notch or two. That's why many people were sooo upset about Kasparov getting schooled by Deep Blue 10+ years ago, and then made up a bunch of excuses why it wasn't fair.
  Whether a machine "intelligently" plays Chess, or is "intelligent" is a stupid question. What's more interesting is how we might accomplish the same task in different ways than our brains might do so. 40 years ago nobody ever thought a computer could be programmed to play even a decent game of chess. These days it's surpassed us. I think that says more about what we think is "intelligent" than anything else.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
10. Re:Well, this is no good by Quackers_McDuck · 2010-06-17 18:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  As humans, we do exactly what physics mandates we do. Unless you're purporting that the human brain uses some sort of hypercomputation or that there's something special (ie outside of our current understanding of physics) about what neurons do, you're not being consistent.
  That said, I understand where you're coming from; most AI research is in very narrow domains and has no intention or hopes of solving the problem of achieving human-level intelligence (Watson is an example of narrow AI, as it clearly lacks a genuine understanding of the question or the english language). But the fact remains, that is how the term AI is used.
  There's a growing separation between this "Narrow AI" and the kind of AI you seem to be hoping for, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). There are some AGI projects out there, such as the open source opencog. Since there's no hope of people stopping calling things like computer chess AI, I prefer to use the term AGI whenever referencing "real" AI.
11. Re:Well, this is no good by Raptoer · 2010-06-17 19:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  To shorten your post: AIs will exist when a computer can write code for itself to run without interaction from a user. Given a problem, and having no prior knowledge of a solution, nor a way to arrive at the solution, an AI will be capable of creating a set of instructions to solve that problem.
12. Re:Well, this is no good by kestasjk · 2010-06-17 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't get too worked up about the definition of words.. The field of AI is all about algorithms which simulate intelligence, and playing chess is about practice more than intelligence anyway
  
  --
  // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
13. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-17 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly is so different between a brain and a computer? Brains might still have an edge in the parallel market right now, but don't expect that to last forever. Both are computers, and both should theoretically be capable of the same things. Who's to say that in the future we won't be emulating wetware on massive synthetic computation substrates?
  The only possible reason for human intelligence to be some sort of un-reachable goal for computers is some sort of non-scientific concept of a "soul". If you are going to bring religion or spirituality into it (which you are welcome to do), it seems wise to hold off of the chastising of those who don't.
  Actually, people who talk about AI bug me too. It implies that there will be something fundamentally different between the various types of intelligences that will emerge. Getting "racist" about it before it even happens strikes me as ill-advised.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
14. Re:Well, this is no good by oldhack · 2010-06-17 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  "If we (erroneously) call what occurs today "intelligent", then if something ever really did become intelligent, what would we call it?"
  Ludakruss.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
15. Re:Well, this is no good by HuguesT · 2010-06-17 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  The ELO ranking of machines is not really directly comparable to humans, because machines play a lot more between themselves than with humans. This is what the wikipedia page has to say about the ELO ranking of machines :
  
  These ratings, although calculated by using the Elo system (or similar rating methods), have no direct relation to FIDE Elo ratings or to other chess federation ratings of human players. Except for some man versus machine games which the SSDF had organized many years ago (which were far from today's level), there is no calibration between any of these rating lists and player pools. Hence, the results which matter are the ranks and the differences between the ratings, not the absolute level of the numbers. Nevertheless, in view of recent man versus machine matches, it is generally undisputed that the top computer chess ratings should be at least in the range of top human performances, and probably significantly higher.
16. Re:Well, this is no good by Twinbee · 2010-06-17 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder what ELO a computer be if it had to be brute force each move (breadth first) rather than rely on particular insights, position rating, and branch pruning, etc.
  
  --
  Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
17. Re:Well, this is no good by chichilalescu · 2010-06-17 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  you're right, of course. COMPUTERS are not intelligent. However, some algorithms are based on models of intelligent behaviour. Whether or not you are using hardware that can rewire itself, as long as the code can rewrite itself you are dealing with some type of intelligence, simulated by a "stupid" computer. I can't really speak about this "Watson" thing, because I didn't read the article. But when your algorithm uses neural networks that have to be trained, you simulate a system that changes its behaviour according to a system of values (while training); it is true that once trained, if it can no longer rewrite itself, it's just a function taking an array of bits and returning another array of bits.
  What we need is a proper definition of the term "intelligence". I agree that, like in computational physics, we are currently just making simulations of intelligent systems. In physics, it can be determined when an experiment would have the same outcome as a simulation; in the same way, algorithms can be "intelligent".
  
  --
  new sig
18. Re:Well, this is no good by dlgeek · 2010-06-17 20:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's impossible to fully all possible games of chess. The game tree complexity is about 10^123, whereas the number of atoms in the universe is thought to be somewhere between 10^79 and 10^81. Thus, it's impossible to brute force the game since you can't store all the possible states.
  
  If, however, we ignore this, then the answer to your question would be "it depends on how fast it could calculate the results." Some hypothetical computer with sufficient memory and a sufficiently fast processor would be unbeatable using a brute force algorithm by the definition of brute forcing. However, as already explained the "sufficient memory" part is pretty much impossible
19. Re:Well, this is no good by Twinbee · 2010-06-17 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I meant on today's speed/RAM computers...
  
  --
  Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
20. Re:Well, this is no good by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 20:34 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's impossible to fully all possible games of chess. The game tree complexity is about 10^123, whereas the number of atoms in the universe is thought to be somewhere between 10^79 and 10^81. Thus, it's impossible to brute force the game since you can't store all the possible states.
  While you're right that it's impossible, the reason you give is wrong: You wouldn't have to store all the possible states at once. After you've determined that you cannot win with a certain move, you don't need to store all those states this move can lead to. And if you determined a winning move, you only have to store the sequence of winning moves. The real problem is time. Even if you could check one move per Planck time (the shortest possible time interval, ca. 5*10^-44s), you'd still need about 5*10^79 seconds, or about 1.5*10^72 years. For comparison, the universe is about 1.5*10^9 years old.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
21. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-17 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  "Artificial" in this context was not meant to mean "not real". It is used as in "created artificially". Look up the word "artifice".
  
  Certainly, given research, you could call a dog or cat "intelligent" to a degree. There does seem to be a "quantity" element involved. But what I am saying is that no quantity of the quality of computing we are capable of today even remotely approaches intelligence.
22. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-17 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  That was exactly the argument of Roger Penrose, et al., with which I strongly disagree.
  
  They went to great lengths to show that since quantum effects are deterministic, and since thought is ultimately dependent on quantum effects, that "free will" cannot exist.
  
  But there is a fundamental problem with that argument: in actuality, many quantum effects are not deterministic, they are probabilistic. They are not predetermined. Further, it has been proven that the presence of an observer or measurement can alter the probabilities. So the argument for predeterminacy is flawed at the deepest level.
  
  Your choice of terminology makes sense, but to me that seems like surrender. We generally have a pretty good feel for what we mean by "intelligence", if not a strict definition, and computers today, even the big ones, are not even remotely in the running to qualify.
23. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-17 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's the quality of what the brain does, its ability to create inferences and free deductions (among other things) that distinguish it. That's what I was saying: the human (or other evolved organic) brain does not just execute the same simple instructions over and over again. There is a fundamental difference in how they operate, and the attempts to simulate one using the other has so far fallen pretty flat. And that's understandable, because they just don't work the same way.
24. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-17 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  And that is my point in a nutshell: what we could really use is a precise definition of intelligence. But I am of the opinion that when one really thinks about it, what one means by "intelligence" is not what is being accomplished by these "AI" systems, even if the popular press calls them that.
25. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-17 21:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Ahem. I did that myself and I should clarify this. "Artificial" can mean "fake", but the original meaning was "workmanship" or "craft". Created by hand.
26. Re:Well, this is no good by bonaldo2000 · 2010-06-17 21:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't know.. perhaps we'd make a bit of progress and realize that "intelligence" isn't some nice single concept to just nail down like mass that we can all agree on what is is and isn't. We might even come up with 10 very different words to describe something we might now use the word intelligence about, since we might actually have a better grasp on what it actually is. If you ask me, intelligence is more about human ego than any real hard definitions. In many peoples minds computers can never be intelligent because it would bring our self opinions down a notch or two. That's why many people were sooo upset about Kasparov getting schooled by Deep Blue 10+ years ago, and then made up a bunch of excuses why it wasn't fair.
  
  How convenient! A theory about intelligence which means that we have actually already created AI!
  
  Get back to work!
27. Re:Well, this is no good by bertok · 2010-06-17 21:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The real problem is time. Even if you could check one move per Planck time (the shortest possible time interval, ca. 5*10^-44s), you'd still need about 5*10^79 seconds, or about 1.5*10^72 years. For comparison, the universe is about 1.5*10^9 years old.
  You're forgetting that speed and parallelism aren't mutually exclusive!
  If you could somehow convert all of the matter in the universe into a massively parallel computer running at that speed, with each CPU having a budget of ~40 million particles, then you'd have a computer that could play chess perfectly, providing each move in about 24 hours at first, and then probably speeding up a bit as the game progresses and there's less of the state space to check.
  Your homework for tonight is to build two such computers using different methods, and compare the relative merits of each solution. Show your work.
28. Re:Well, this is no good by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-06-17 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Computers are not intelligent because they are unable to reason. They iterate until they achieve an optimal solution to a specific set of rules.
  
  Ask a computer to win at chess and unless you're the next Kasparov you're going to be hammered into the ground. Ask it why chess is an important game, and you're SOOL.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
29. Re:Well, this is no good by thomst · 2010-06-17 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  To call anything running on a computer today "intelligent" is to undermine the word itself. You might as well call a rock an airplane.
  
  Well, there WAS an Airplane that rocked. Does that count?
  
  --
  Check out my novel.
30. Re:Well, this is no good by Warbothong · 2010-06-17 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  To shorten your post: AIs will exist when a computer can write code for itself to run without interaction from a user. Given a problem, and having no prior knowledge of a solution, nor a way to arrive at the solution, an AI will be capable of creating a set of instructions to solve that problem.
  That's a rather restrictive definition of intelligence, I think. How do humans solve problems we confront/are given? We certainly have prior knowledge of a solution, since we have a lifetime of experience which will no doubt include some things we think might be relevant, even if that's just how to move our arms and legs. We also have a definite way to arrive at a solution, which is to try some of those things and see what happens, then go from there. This will either make the problem unsolvable (eg. attempting brain surgery with an axe, after which we have to give up) or will bring us closer to a solution (even in the case of compounding a problem, we will know not to repeat whatever we just did, which is an improvement over our prior ignorance).
  For some problems we can do this mentally by asking ourselves "What if" questions, or we might build simulations and models to help us tackle the real problem, but ultimately we're doing the same thing. After we've tried a lot of approaches (either mentally or physically) and we end up solving it, we can back-track and write down those bits which worked. These things don't seem too difficult to program, which is why AI has seemed so close for so long.
  To deny a computer program these tactics by banning 'prior knowledge' and 'a way to arrive at the solution' would be unfair. For example we would deem it an unfair test of human intelligence if we sat a hunter-gatherer from 20,000 years ago in front of a calculus exam, since he has no prior knowledge of what to do; he wouldn't know how to read or write, or what those concepts even are, let alone concepts like incrementing a function's parameter by an infinitesimal amount. It requires years of education for a human's memory to incorporate such concepts, with lots of people (teachers) being paid to repeat and build up these memories every day.
  However, if we gave a computer program some kind of education, for instance giving it a database containing definitions of functions, numbers, integration, differentiation, etc. and then it aced the calculus exam, there are those who would claim that it's not fair because it was 'only using its database' or 'only using logic' or some other hand-wavey statement. In fact, if we paid a multitude of people to input data into these databases every day for 10 years just to get the program to spit out correct answers to the calculus exam then many would call it a waste of time, money and effort.
  Thinking about it this way though, it sheds new light on the way the education system is set up ;)
31. Re:Well, this is no good by elsurexiste · 2010-06-18 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  You should have started with some definition of intelligence. I define it as the ability to solve problems, so yeah, those machines are intelligent.
  
  --
  I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
32. Re:Well, this is no good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 00:45 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Neurons do execute an absolutely simple instruction over and over again, until they die. The human brain is the perfect practical proof that indeed, trivial components in sufficiently large quantities can make a qualitative difference, for example, the human and rat brains differ by just a order of magnitude, but are able to achieve qualitatively much superior results.
  We haven't yet built a nearly large enough computer to do the same things on the scale of human brains, though - and even when we do make a fully human-level general intelligence, then it will need (according to how homo sapiens operate) a couple of years of practice until the new can understand simple words, a dozen years until it starts really understanding complex problems, and twenty one years until it will be able to decide if should be drinking alcohol). Well, kidding on the last part, but pretty much so.
33. Re:Well, this is no good by shadow_slicer · 2010-06-18 00:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Computers are not intelligent because they are unable to reason. They iterate until they achieve an optimal solution to a specific set of rules.
  Could you define "reason"? The AI field has worked for a while (until the 80s) to build machines that reason. There were some successes with expert systems and things like that (which, given sufficient data could "reason" according to standard definition). The problem with them is that they need complete information, so they never really made it out of the lab. Current works have turned instead of "reasoning" systems to Bayesian inference engines which use complicated statistical methods and approximations to find the most likely answer. They build estimates of probability distributions based on training (equivalent to experience) and then can use them to make decisions or predictions. They are much more flexible than the reasoning machines that were build before and handle incomplete data appropriately.
  These probably don't "reason" by your definition, but then again, neither does the human brain: the current understanding of cognition suggests that it is also a inference engine, making probabilistic judgments based on experience in spite of limited information.
  If these methods count as AI, then AI already exists. It is used in everything from handwriting and speech recognition to ranking players on XBox Live. If you look at the tasks that AI researchers hoped to solve when research in AI began, a large number of them have been solved. So if a computer can solve a problem that was previously considered an AI problem, wouldn't it be "moving the goal posts" to say that we don't have any AI today?
34. Re:Well, this is no good by JasterBobaMereel · 2010-06-18 01:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The real issue is that AI research has mainly discovered that Intelligence is not well defined, and everything we thought was difficult (e.g. Playing chess) is relatively easy, and everything we thought was easy (e.g. Understanding Human Language) is horrifically difficult
  A human child can walk, see interact and understand it's environment, hold a conversation ... none of these can be done even more than adequately by machines .. (Walking is ahead of the rest so far) but a cheap chess computer can beat most people, including most Grand Masters the majority of the time
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
35. Re:Well, this is no good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 01:08 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  It's impossible to fully all possible games of chess.
  Only if you're trying. On the other hand, I accidentally all possible games of chess.
36. Re:Well, this is no good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  which today more or less can be replaced by syntetic.
37. Re:Well, this is no good by Vellmont · 2010-06-18 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  How convenient! A theory about intelligence which means that we have actually already created AI!
  
  Not paying attention. This isn't even anything approaching a theory. It's a critique of how people think about intelligence and what it is. A theory would have to entail a definition of what intelligence is. I'm saying we don't even have that, and that it's likely not something that's really possible.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
38. Re:Well, this is no good by bonaldo2000 · 2010-06-18 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  I know man, I'm just joking.
39. Re:Well, this is no good by juasko · 2010-06-18 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  To me one ultimate prof of inteligense would be action upon imagination. That may not be the only state that needs to be reached but sure is one important aspect of true intelligense. But to act you need life. Something dead will not act of its own. But skipping that part... and descripbe what I view as prof of acts upon imagination. We humans do imagine impossible things. E.g. we imagined wagons without horces. We imagined how it would be to fly as the birds. This imagination created a lust, this lust inturn created the power to innovate in the science of flying (or other) Today we do fly with our innovations. We also imagine space travel, we (some) have gotten a lust for space travel which has powerd some innovations in that field of science, we go to the moon, still not traveling. But you know the story from above (actually the profecy, history written in beforehand) Today we also imagine that we could create intelligence just as God did, or for the majority as Big Bang did (different aproach just a bunch of true random functions). Personally I doubt the human intelligence would be able to create intelligence, but the patten is the same as in the above. We imagine the posibility, we gain a lust for creating it, we start innovating in that science watson is an example of that. Well if the story doesn't end somwhere it will become a profecy to we will create intelligence. Is imagination oposite of being rational. Right an Left, our brains seems bit oposite in left and right. Maybe intelligense is a balance upon action based on imagination and being rational. To program lust and love i belive is a piece of nuts compared with the scope i just described.
40. Re:Well, this is no good by juasko · 2010-06-18 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  However our brain is altering it's own hardware automatically. That is why a smoker can become a nonsmoker, by will. It wont do the same calculation over and over again because it choses to overide that calculation.
41. Re:Well, this is no good by juasko · 2010-06-18 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  This is like in the -80 es Mac PC era. The PC was incredible difficult to use. Especially if you couln't read the manual. But it was simple to program. The Mac was simple to use, u didn't need a manual. But it was incredible difficult to program. I was just a kid, but i still can make a DOS application. I still can't make a good mac applicaton. But i could use the mac when i was a kid, I barely manage hacking registry on a Win PC. :P
42. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  On a theoretical (read: computational theory) level, they are both the same. As Von Neumann stated: "Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." Human brains, like computers, exist in the real world and have to obey the same set of rules. Baring the existence of the soul, they are both completely deterministic (with the exception of randomness from quantum mechanics, which both can take advantage of). Humans are not Turing Oracles, if anything we are less computationally powerful than the computers we have created.
  Your statement: "brain does not just execute the same simple instructions over and over again" is incorrect. The human brain may be an computer architecture with which you are unfamiliar (it is almost certainly not a modified harvard architecture, like you probably think of when you think of computers), however that does not mean that it is intrinsically more powerful than any other computer, or that it cannot be reduced to simpler computer models. Unless you have discovered something completely unknown about what exactly the brain is (in which case, do please share), than "executing the same simple instructions over and over again" is exactly what the brain is doing.
  Consider this thought experiment: Scientists restrict their study to that of a single human neuron. They study every aspect of this neuron, building a complete theoretical picture of how it operates, and how it responds to different stimuli. Then, with the wonders of nano-technology, they build their own. A completely synthetic "robot neuron", that happens to be able to report back it's state to a central computer. They then remove a similar neuron from a human test subject, and insert this robot neuron in it's place, matching their internal states as closely as allowable. Surely the human test subject is still human, correct? You'll lose orders or magnitude of your own neurons in a modest night of drinking, so of course he isn't any less human for the loss of a single. Now repeat this experiment over and over again, until you have replaced the entirety of the brain. At no one point was the human's stream of consciousness interrupted, but his brain is now entirely synthetic. Furthermore, a snapshot of his brain can now be obtained, and simulated, on a sufficiently powerful computer.
  Furthermore, efforts to simulate brains on computers are getting further every day. Scientists can simulate neural networks of equivalent power of rodents on super computers right now.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
43. Re:Well, this is no good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  To create a perfect chess game you don't need to solve every possible game. You only need to prune to a winning tree from the known starting point. The only branches you have to keep represent the opponents choices. If you realize that half the complexity can be eliminated (i.e. your choices) you come up with a solved complexity of sqrt(10^123) or 10^66. On top of that consider that as a statefull game a sizeable chunk of the remaining branches are likely to identical and therefor don't need to be solved twice.
44. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Changes in hardware, which do happen, can equally be described as changes in software. A Turing machine that is able to change it's own hardware is not more powerful than one that cannot, since it is quite trivial to simulate a TM that modifies it's own hardware on a TM that cannot.
  Nobody is arguing that the human brain and a computer are the same styles of computer, just that they are both computers (and therefore not as different as many would like to think).
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
45. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  This. Synthetic is a far less emotionally loaded word, and it sounds like it means the same thing you are trying to convey.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
46. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Any computer with a hardware RNG device, such as one that keeps track of radioactive decay, can take advantage of non-deterministic quantum effects. Just as you claim the human brain is unpredictable, a computer can be made to be so.
  Furthermore, I hardly consider the influence of outside quantum effects to be a sufficiently satisfying explanation of "free will". To me "free will" means the ability to non-deterministically decide without outside influence (which quantum mechanics would qualify as in my book). Mathematics tells us that such non-determinism cannot be arrived upon.
  Anyways, this entire discussion about the existence of free will is pretty firmly in theological territory. Without a scientifically quantifiable reason that brains are not computers, we can only reasonably continue under the assumption that they are.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
47. Re:Well, this is no good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Leaving enough universe around to allow for observing them gives bonus credit, I assume?
48. Re:Well, this is no good by juasko · 2010-06-18 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  I agree and disagree. A computer works by some sets of algorithms. I do believe it's the same with the brain. But that they would be similar is just oversimplifications. End they are absolutely not same style of computers. A computer never acts on it's own, the brain does. It teaches itself, it reprogram itself, and if unstimulated it goes rampant. A program or computer is stable that is not the case with the brain.
49. Re:Well, this is no good by wisdom_brewing · 2010-06-18 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Chess has finally been solved to the point that there's now unbeatable AIs available to the average user (assuming it gets to move first)
  
  There are no unbeatable AIs for chess yet, that would imply chess is a solved game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess). It doesn't make much of a difference who moves first, either.
  He said "average user"...
  
  --
  I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
50. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Strictly speaking, if the brain is a computer, then "what we are" would be the software. Our teaching, reprogramming, and going crazy are all, or could be all, software 'features'. Any strictly "hardware" features that might be present in the brain could be simulated in software just as easily.
  Computers are stable because we program them to be, and there are certainly plenty of examples of software that is anything but stable :)
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
51. Re:Well, this is no good by geekoid · 2010-06-18 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Please define intelligent.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
52. Re:Well, this is no good by geekoid · 2010-06-18 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Don't confuse the lack of free will with "predeterminacy "
  It's a common mistake that comes for a history of debating this question in a religious contexts, as apposed to a natural context.
  "it has been proven that the presence of an observer or measurement can alter the probabilities."
  no, it hasn't. Measuring a quantum event causes collapse, but in no way effects the resuts; which seem to be purely random.
  If we can make quantum events collapse in a predictable way, we could send information faster then light.
  Based on a few studies, it looks like the brain makes a decision before it question is raised to the conscious mind.
  That has many interesting implication. More research is needed.
  So your brain may make it's decision before you realize there is a decision to be made. So there isn't any destiny at stake, but there may be no free will in many specific situations.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
53. Re:Well, this is no good by geekoid · 2010-06-18 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Please, show a person that can do that? you can't because we all rely on experience to create a frame work in which to answer a question. Any question you answer is built upon information you have.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
54. Re:Well, this is no good by geekoid · 2010-06-18 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Which part aof average user was confusing to you?
  A 10 dollar Chess program can beat all but the top 500 or so people in the world. so for the average user it's 'solved'
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
55. Re:Well, this is no good by nine-times · 2010-06-18 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well essentially what has happened is that AI has become a term to mean any mechanical behavior which can adapt to different circumstances. It may be because of overuse of the term, but I've seen people use the word "AI" to any kind of computerized decision-making that is clever enough that people can't immediately tell how it's done.
  However, I agree that this isn't what I consider "AI". In my opinion, we haven't built real AI when we've designed a computer that can beat all human players in Jeopardy. We've built real AI when the AI designed to defeat human players in Jeopard is capable of deciding that it doesn't want to play Jeopardy anymore.
  I've argued many times before that real computerized intelligence will probably not be achieved through current approaches because we misunderstand "what intelligence is". It's a really funny thing, because almost universally I hear people talk about intelligence being a function of the brain, but that's blatantly wrong.
  I think it's clear, at least, that human intelligence is an emergent trait that grows out of interacting with the world in a way that includes basic desires and goals. A baby become intelligent on its own because it's hungry and because it wants attention. If the baby didn't have animal desires and aversions, then the various stimuli wouldn't have an effect on the developing brain.
  Or to give another example, there have been arguments (rather successful ones, IMO) that we never would have attained what we consider "human-level intelligence" if it weren't for the design of our hands. Hands allow us to pick things up and observe them in a way that animals can't do. For a dog to pick something up, it uses its mouth, which then means the dog can't see the object. So in this sense, I suspect we won't be able to accurately re-create human intelligence without re-creating a human body with human desires/aversions. It's not clear that's what we really want though, anyway.
56. Re:Well, this is no good by HiThere · 2010-06-18 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that lets out people.
  You really need to seriously think about your definition, either that, or notice a bit about how people operate in the world. (Or claim that "intelligent entities" is, and probably always will be, a null set.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
57. Re:Well, this is no good by phantomfive · 2010-06-18 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  If you ask me, intelligence is more about human ego than any real hard definitions. In many peoples minds computers can never be intelligent because it would bring our self opinions down a notch or two.
  This is the typical rationalization that has come up in the AI world once it divided into strong AI and weak AI. Strong AI is hard, so some researchers started saying weak AI is good enough.
  
  But there is a difference. We don't know everything about human intelligence, but we do know some things. Humans are creative, they come up with new and interesting things, we can recognize when we found interesting things, Our pattern recognition capability is unbeaten.
  
  It is extremely clear that the way a chess playing computer plays is different than the way a human plays. For example, a chess computer searches through millions of positions a second, and a human looks through two, or maybe ten. Doesn't that lopsidedness astound you? How is the human able to keep up at all?
  
  In short, we haven't figured out how the human brain thinks. Redefining the word 'AI' doesn't get around that fact.
  
  --
  Qxe4
58. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-18 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I did not confuse lack of free will with predeterminacy. Penrose and his collaborator did. Not only did they mix the two, they insist that one necessarily dictates the other. I do not buy their argument.
  
  no, it hasn't. Measuring a quantum event causes collapse, but in no way effects the resuts; which seem to be purely random.
  Yes, it has. Among others, Heisenberg showed that it is not possible to measure some quantum states without altering those states (such as, for example, both the position and velocity of a photon). Depending on the method of measurement, the alteration need not be random at all. In fact it can be quite deliberate, as in the manipulation of qubits in experimental quantum computers.
59. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-18 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  "If we can make quantum events collapse in a predictable way, we could send information faster then light."
  Yes, and it has been done. Look up the recent experiments, in which alteration of the spin of one half of an entangled pair instantly changed the spin on the other particle... which was a full meter away.
  
  There may not be any practical use of this technique yet, but yes, it has been done.
60. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-18 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  I did not claim that it was more powerful. What I stated was that it was different. Nor did I state that it could not be modeled. I merely stated that it had not been modeled.
61. Re:Well, this is no good by catmistake · 2010-06-18 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's bleaker than you describe. There will never be artificial consciousness. Computers and their software will get better and better at fooling us into believing they are intelligent or consious, but computer science and philosophy of mind has already proven that artificial consciousness is unattainable.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
62. Re:Well, this is no good by Hatta · 2010-06-18 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Does CopyCat count? It only applies to a very limited domain of problems, but within that domain there's plenty of room for creativity.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
63. Re:Well, this is no good by juasko · 2010-06-18 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  nope they are not stable because we program them to be. Ever seen a computer unprogrammed that aint stable?
64. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  An un-programmed computer is like a dead brain, it's just a piece of metal/meat...
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
65. Re:Well, this is no good by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily. Google "Rainbow Tables" and consider how this concept could be applied to storing game state.
66. Re:Well, this is no good by Sir_Lewk · 2010-06-18 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  You implied that it's difference is what made it fundamentally hard to model. The fact that one can model the other and vice versa implies that they are in fact equivalent.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
67. Re:Well, this is no good by DamnStupidElf · 2010-06-18 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're right. At some point, computers and/or software will simply have real consciousness. At least as real as the consciousness that our brain produces.
68. Re:Well, this is no good by StikyPad · 2010-06-18 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I came close to the cover of Chess Life once. Does that count?
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
69. Re:Well, this is no good by StikyPad · 2010-06-18 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's impossible to fully all possible games of chess.
  That's partially.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
70. Re:Well, this is no good by Vellmont · 2010-06-18 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  In short, we haven't figured out how the human brain thinks. Redefining the word 'AI' doesn't get around that fact.
  
  Do we need to understand how the human brain works to understand what intelligence is?
  I do agree that a word definition doesn't change anything, but so what? I just think the discussion is rather meaningless, or at least a lot less meaningful than most people would care to admit.
  I think it's more instructive to understand what computers can and can't do than it is to focus on some sort of "hard AI" vs "soft AI".
  
  --
  AccountKiller
71. Re:Well, this is no good by oliverthered · 2010-06-18 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  computers are NOT "intelligent". At all.
  a: Your a type of computer.
  b: care to enlighten me on this 'inteligent' thing you claim to be?
  c: If you do not perceive that you to perform the same calculations over and over again then I'd change jobs.
  How exactly do you program if you don't just translate your thoughts into language?
  
  --
  thank God the internet isn't a human right.
72. Re:Well, this is no good by oliverthered · 2010-06-19 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  that glass your drinking out of, what (guessing)35million years of human 'intelligence' or 35million years of the evolution of science through accidental discovery, random chance, and natural selection.
  
  --
  thank God the internet isn't a human right.
73. Re:Well, this is no good by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-06-19 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that one can model the other and vice versa implies that they are in fact equivalent.
  And that's where we disagree. I am not so sure this is a fact. At least, it has never been shown to my satisfaction.
74. Re:Well, this is no good by dlgeek · 2010-06-19 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  The ggp who asked the question specifically asked for a breadth-first-search. If you're doing a BFS, you have to keep the whole tree in memory somehow since you can't eliminate a branch without fully traversing it and you're doing your traversal horizontally rather than vertically. Thus, not possible without more storage than the universe offers.
75. Re:Well, this is no good by dlgeek · 2010-06-19 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  "enumerate" was the word I missed.
76. Re:Well, this is no good by juasko · 2010-06-20 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  exactly my point... and it's a stable situation. But ever since the sperm n the egg combined that brain has been unstable
I'll be impressed by Kitkoan · 2010-06-17 17:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

If it can properly rate if these people are hot or not.

--
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
1. Re:I'll be impressed by lul_wat · 2010-06-17 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't be hard.. just use the Golden Ratio on their faces.
  
  --
  Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
2. Re:I'll be impressed by Cassius+Corodes · 2010-06-17 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  also how symmetrical their main features are and the ratios between them as per above.
  
  --
  Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
3. Re:I'll be impressed by asukasoryu · 2010-06-18 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  Women have faces? I've been doing this all wrong.
  
  --
  There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
4. Re:I'll be impressed by Karganeth · 2010-06-18 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why is parent +5 interesting? Completely off topic. poor moderation
5. Re:I'll be impressed by sorak · 2010-06-18 03:31 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  If it can properly rate if these people are hot or not.
  I think we need a site called "bot or not". You look at someone's browsing history and determine the likelihood that their system is infected.
6. Re:I'll be impressed by lul_wat · 2010-06-18 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  They have names and personalities too. Just like a real person.
  
  --
  Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
7. Re:I'll be impressed by hedronist · 2010-06-18 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  I rarely wish for mod points, but I almost sprayed coffee on my monitor reading this one. +10 Funny!
Back to the drawing board by Brett+Buck · 2010-06-17 17:28 · Score: 1

Watson has competed in and won a majority of (mock) matches against humans in Jeopardy.
Against mock humans? I killed it, easily.
Brett
1. Re:Back to the drawing board by nomadic · 2010-06-17 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah beat it pretty badly.
2. Re:Back to the drawing board by brianerst · 2010-06-17 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  It was ridiculously easy to beat - so much so that I wondered if there was something wrong with the website. My final score was 59-11, and that was only because I typoed two of the answers (Watson is, I'm sure, a much better typist than me).
  Even when I mentally tried to score it for "late" correct/incorrect answers (the website shows you Watson's answer even if you answer correctly), I'm pretty sure Watson would have ended up in the high-teens.
  I once owned a Viszla named Watson - I'm not sure, but I think the dog might have eked out a better score...
3. Re:Back to the drawing board by KingSkippus · 2010-06-18 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I killed it, too, but mainly because of the rules of the game in which I get first crack at the answer.
  Still, I think the point is that it's impressive the number of questions it gets right. I really didn't miss very many. My mental tally had it getting around 70% or so, which is pretty damn good. I got around 80%, but again, I had first crack at the answer, so Watson could have only possibly scored around 20% of the answers at best. If it tallied your score and Watson's score without actually competing head-to-head, that probably would have been a more interesting challenge. Keep in mind that as a computer, if the programmers chose to do so, they could probably have Watson answering everything pretty much simultaneously. Also, Jeopardy! is a lot about timing, hitting that button as soon as the buttons are unlocked, so in that respect, Watson probably really could kick ass in that its reaction time will always be faster than yours.
  Just because I won doesn't make the technology not interesting or significant. Frankly, I'm impressed that it's even able to answer 20% of the questions expressed in natural language correctly.
4. Re:Back to the drawing board by bws111 · 2010-06-18 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well yeah it's easy to beat, it's not playing. This is just a canned flash demo of answers (and possible answers) that it came up with. It gives you the opportunity to answer first every time, so it is never going to 'beat' you if you know the answer. Looking at the possible answers it considered is way more interesting than trying to beat this demo. For instance, one of the 'what me worry' answers was 'scratching' (which it did not get right), but one of the answers it considered (along with eczema) was 'A Bugs Life'. I wonder what triggered that possibility.
5. Re:Back to the drawing board by moeinvt · 2010-06-18 02:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Back to the drawing board my arse. You may have beaten the web page game easily, but consider the fact that you wouldn't get first shot at every single question in a real match. If you assume 50-50 on the ring-in time when both players think they have the right answer, I think Watson looks pretty good on this game (although they wouldn't have put an example of a particularly bad match on the web).
  It also has a probability threshold below which it won't attempt a response. The real machine must be set up so that if it's behind in the score late in the game, it would ring in with its highest probability "guess". That would make things more interesting. Think of "Final Jeopardy" too. If the machine can get >50% of the point leader's score, the match is totally up for grabs.
  People that go through the qualifying process to appear on the show are definitely on the upper end of the intellect/knowledge bell curves, so that would be a tough challenge. I totally believe that the machine would crush the "average" person.
I have only one question... by bobdotorg · 2010-06-17 17:31 · Score: 5, Funny

What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
1. Re:I have only one question... by Kitkoan · 2010-06-17 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
  African or European?
  
  --
  Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
2. Re:I have only one question... by LostCluster · 2010-06-17 17:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Was this bird affected by the BP oil spill or not?
3. Re:I have only one question... by Brett+Buck · 2010-06-17 17:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I don' t know that... AAAARGH!
4. Re:I have only one question... by jprupp · 2010-06-17 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean? American or European?
5. Re:I have only one question... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, your question must be in the form of an answer.
6. Re:I have only one question... by newcastlejon · 2010-06-17 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  If it has been then the breed doesn't matter: from what I read those birds that Hollywood stars clean for publicity only live a few days anyway with all the oil they've ingested from trying to clean themselves.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
7. Re:I have only one question... by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  This is Jeopardy. You give the answer and it is supposed to give the question.
  Now what question has the answer 42?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
8. Re:I have only one question... by iammani · 2010-06-17 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  what is 41+1?
9. Re:I have only one question... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  I have only one answer.
10. Re:I have only one question... by Noughmad · 2010-06-17 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  what is 41+1?
  It's "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?", RTFB.
  
  --
  PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
11. Re:I have only one question... by Spikeles · 2010-06-17 21:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  there is unfortunately insufficient data to estimate the velocity of an African swallow (even if you specified which of the 47 species of swallow found in Africa you meant)
  
  --
  I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
12. Re:I have only one question... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  I'll get back to you on that one... just wait for it.
13. Re:I have only one question... by hey! · 2010-06-18 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Harry lied to you, Norman. Everything Harry says is a lie. Remember that, Norman. *Everything* he says is a lie...
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But would it be able to answer this question? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 17:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

Capital, not as in letter, of the state ending with Jersey which begins with New, is what?
1. Re:But would it be able to answer this question? by JeanBaptiste · 2010-06-17 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure most New Jersey-ians would get that correct either
Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by ianezz · 2010-06-17 17:59 · Score: 0

The answer is 42.
1. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by LostCluster · 2010-06-17 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  {buzzes in}
  What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?
2. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by LostCluster · 2010-06-17 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Does it become 84 if it's behind the Daily Double?
3. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  This answer is wrong. The correct solution would have been:
  What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
4. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  What do you get if you multiply six with nine?
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
5. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 19:07 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  This answer is wrong. The correct solution would have been:
  What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
  wrong again:
  What is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?
6. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by pal3f · 2010-06-17 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  What do you get if you multiply six with nine?
  I have a feeling you're going to want to take this one back ;)
7. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  This answer is wrong. The correct solution would have been:
  What is the answer to life, the universe and everything?
  wrong again:
  What is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything?
  No.
  "O Deep Thought Computer," he said, "the task we have designed you to
  perform is this. We want you to tell us..." he paused, "...the Answer!"
  "The answer?" said Deep Thought. "The answer to what?"
  "Life!" urged Fook.
  "The Universe!" said Lunkwill.
  "Everything!" they said in chorus.
  No "meaning of" in there.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
8. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  What do you get if you multiply six with nine?
  I have a feeling you're going to want to take this one back ;)
  I have a feeling you might want to read Douglas Adams. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
9. Re:Here's a Jeopardy! hint. by pal3f · 2010-06-17 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, after I posted that it occurred to me that it may be a quote or literary reference rather than late-night math. I once had friend try to tell me -- very poorly and at excruciating length -- all about The Hitchhiker's Guide, which completely killed any interest I may have otherwise had of ever thinking of it again, much less reading it. Unfortunately this can be something of a handicap here on slashdot!
Artificially Something by Zancarius · 2010-06-17 18:38 · Score: 1

I prefer the term "Artificial Stupidity" or "Artificial Stupidity in Software" (ASS), but I'm afraid much of Congress wouldn't even consider funding studies in this direction for fear that they'd finally have competition.
Joking aside, that's a pet peeve I don't fully understand partially because we've already lost the war on defining "hacker;" the mainstream press has managed to twist and desecrate the latter in spite of the campaigns on our side of the fence. There isn't much hope for AI "purists" in this particular case, specifically when you consider how generic the term "AI" has become. What better term is there, anyway? Would a "question and answer simulation system" be a better fit? Statistical fact-checking device? I think AI is suitable in this case.
Really, does it matter? Our brains may be massively parallel analog devices, but when you strip away culture, creativity, insight, and all the other things that separates us from other organisms, you're really just left with a machine that responds to input (stimuli) and generates output. I guess that begs the question: What is your definition of "intelligence," and what should intelligence of the artificial sort look like?

--
He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
1. Re:Artificially Something by tnok85 · 2010-06-17 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer the term "Artificial Stupidity" or "Artificial Stupidity in Software" (ASS), but I'm afraid much of Congress wouldn't even consider funding studies in this direction for fear that they'd finally have competition.
  There would be no competition. I highly doubt we could create an ASS that was as dumb as Congress.
2. Re:Artificially Something by juasko · 2010-06-18 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's only due to lousy scientist/engineers etc that we have gotten these problems. If they only themselves would stick to the proper meanding of each word. Instead of proclaming that they been first to create life syntetically or similary we wouldn't have this problem. But these scientist exagurate the labeling of their findings, only to make a name in the comunity. E.g. this scientist who clamed that he has created life from dead matter. What he actually had done was to create at DNS strin syntetically. Still that DNA string was a direct copy of an existing DNA string of an bactery in the nature. And the cell itself that it was "injected" to was far from "unfertile" or dead in itself. If only these people who actually know what they are doing, would put their own ego away and actuall lable and describe theri findings correctly. Neither would Ai be missused nor the word hacker!
3. Re:Artificially Something by Zancarius · 2010-06-22 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  There would be no competition. I highly doubt we could create an ASS that was as dumb as Congress.
  It pains me to admit that you are 100% correct.
  
  --
  He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
4. Re:Artificially Something by Zancarius · 2010-06-22 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  If they only themselves would stick to the proper meanding of each word. Instead of proclaming that they been first to create life syntetically or similary we wouldn't have this problem. But these scientist exagurate the labeling of their findings, only to make a name in the comunity.
  That's a very good point.
  
  --
  He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
Re:can it answer this? by maxwell+demon · 2010-06-17 18:46 · Score: 1

What is an example of a tongue twister?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 19:13 · Score: 0

Why is there nothing interesting anymore on /.?
Just news from yesterday...
1. Re:Anonymous Coward by Sulphur · 2010-06-18 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have difficulty with maintaining interest. Would you like to meet Eliza.
  Yours truly, Clippy.
I lost on Jepordy by Black+Gold+Alchemist · 2010-06-17 19:15 · Score: 3, Funny

Against a programmer, oh, and an algorithm, both with a PhD....

-Weird Al Parodied

--
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
1. Re:I lost on Jepordy by Yaos · 2010-06-18 00:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I took Potpourri, for 100, and my head started to spin.
ELIZA by Izabael_DaJinn · 2010-06-17 19:30 · Score: 1

I wonder if a website where people subscribed to artificial friends, shrinks, lovers would be a viable business model if it was as good at mimicking these things in conversations. An Eliza frontend on this Jeopardy beast might work. Plus Eliza was always giving questions as answers too!! I'd rather talk to a computer program about certain things anyway......and this one *would* be connected to the internet and would hone into your tastes quickly.

--
Careful What You Wish For....
1. Re:ELIZA by f3rret · 2010-06-17 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  I would visit the site seeing as how I have no real friends.
  Microsoft Sam is my only true friend.
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
RTFA, Jesus by brunes69 · 2010-06-17 22:57 · Score: 1

If you had even read the first 3 paras of the article, you would know that YES it can answer questions posed like that. The whole point of WATSON is that it has very advanced natural language processing, enough that it can even understand the puns and strange grammar of jeopardy questions.
1. Re:RTFA, Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-20 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  Which one of the articles? Yes, I know it can handle "sophisticated wordplay". But, my question still stands. If it can handle the question: Capital, not as in letter, of the state ending with Jersey which begins with New, is what?
easteregg by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 23:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

use answer "iced!!!" or "pwned!!!" for a silly reply :P
Odd metric by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-17 23:45 · Score: 0

I could make a program that could beat people in a mock jeapordy contest too if I controlled the categories....
Re:can it answer this? by Yaos · 2010-06-18 00:03 · Score: 1

A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck wood.
It's not "thinking" of the answer... by (VerbalKint)12345 · 2010-06-18 00:12 · Score: 1

"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
-Edsger W. Dijkstra
1. Re:It's not "thinking" of the answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 04:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Bite me, Dijkhead. I happen to think both questions are fucking fascinating.
2. Re:It's not "thinking" of the answer... by Beezlebub33 · 2010-06-18 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Oy, you completely missed the point. The questions (whether computers can think or submarines can swim) are asking the wrong questions. They presuppose that the object (computer or submarine) can or will accomplish the task (thinking or swimming) in the same way that people or animals perform the task. They don't and they won't, so it's a bad question. The questions should be asked relative to the task (some goal) that the object can accomplish. Much of the discussion above is not 'can computers think' but 'can computers be intelligent', and others in the threads have rightly pointed out that it starts with the definition of 'intelligent' and then you have to have criteria for determining yes or no.
  Submarines cannot swim. They can propel themselves through water, and how they do so is an interesting subject. But it's different from swimming. Computers cannot think. They can come up with useful and correct answers to questions (or question to answers in this case). And how they do so and how to make them better (by some measure) is an interesting subject. But, it's not 'thinking'.
  
  --
  The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
elementary dear watson by youn · 2010-06-18 00:15 · Score: 1

the answer is 42 :)

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
Stop being dim vellmont by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-18 00:30 · Score: 0

Intelligence requires thought on the part of the thing which we are assigning it to.
The computer isn't 'deciding' anything any more than the rock you stubbed your toe on 'decided' to get in your way, or your car, decided to use less fuel when you took your foot off the gas.
Computers aren't any more intelligent than is a piece of paper can be 'happy' simply because a smiley face has been drawn on it.
How infuriatinly Americo-centric by BeardsmoreA · 2010-06-18 00:53 · Score: 0, Offtopic

If the sample questions I just tried are anything to go by, and they've been running this thing against a variety of international volunteers online (I've no idea if this is the case), then damn right it's going to win - practically every question needed some knowledge of modern US brands/media/folklore. That ignores the fact that you need to know a bit about the premise of jeopardy to play, but I can forgive that. I just kept seeing the correct answer and thinking 'oh right. who?'
37-18 by Hognoxious · 2010-06-18 01:21 · Score: 1

Eat that, you big blue lump of metal!
(And it took me two questions what the hell how "before and after" worked)

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, the demo isn't impressive by hey! · 2010-06-18 01:36 · Score: 1

without seeing the architecture of the application.
Anybody can write an quiz game that beats you every time. What is (might be) impressive is how you are beaten. If I understand this, the impressive part is supposed to be that the system processes the questions as natural language, generates a number of matches, then chooses the one that it "thinks" matches the sense of the question most closely.
That's a pretty tall order, but still as a demo the app isn't impressive, because the app designer chooses the question or constructs the question in a certain way. This is the kind of demo I, as a programmer, would be delighted to be able to create as a proof of concept, but it's a far cry from being able to answer questions that originate outside the development team.
It's like the old security conundrum: any idiot can create security measures he himself is unable to break.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
similar and different from Google Search by peter303 · 2010-06-18 03:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Both Watson and Google relied on statistically analyzed word occurrences with a veneer of procedural/rule intelligence. Waston seeks the correct answer, while Google the most popular document containing the answer. Neither incorporate "deep" understanding like CYC's rule ontology. But it may not be that necessary if the statistics are large enough.
1. Re:similar and different from Google Search by nine-times · 2010-06-18 05:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But it may not be that necessary if the statistics are large enough.
  It's possible, though, that the statistics can never be "large enough". I remember seeing an article here about natural language speech recognition (oh, here it is) and about how many companies had hoped to continually feed more and more examples of language use into a computer and, through statistical analysis, be able to develop human-level speech recognition. The article indicated that these companies found a point after which additional examples didn't help. The statistical analysis (at least the methods being used) leveled off around 40% while human recognition was up around 95%.
  Even when the statistical models included searching the rest of the sentence for context and calculating likely words, the recognition still failed. Part of the problem is wordplay-- sarcasm, puns, and unusual word usage. We use all kinds of contextual queues, and not just the word's context in the sentence, but things like facial expressions, tone of voice, and even an understanding of the speaker's personality. That's a lot of context for a computer to pick up on.
  What's more, when people listen to another person talking, we basically try to draw out "what the other person is saying" and then use that knowledge to fill in any blanks. So if I use a really strange word choice when talking about my wife, another married guy might understand more quickly what I'm saying by relating to his own feelings about his own wife. Until a computer has a wife, that's a level of context which will be inaccessible.
  (not everything I'm talking about in this post is in the article I cited)
2. Re:similar and different from Google Search by Eric+S.+Smith · 2010-06-18 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  We use all kinds of contextual queues...
  Hah! Well done.
  
  --
  Mind the Gap
When it will ask questions... by tandr · 2010-06-18 03:38 · Score: 1

"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
So, is true intelligence will come once they are able to ASK the questions?
It doesn't seem to learn, that or... by bynary · 2010-06-18 04:04 · Score: 1

...it's a "pre-recorded" session. I played the NYTimes game twice in a row. The first time, the computer beat me. The second time, given the exact same questions, I handily beat the computer. I learned from my mistakes and was able to apply that knowledge to a similar scenario improving the outcome on my end. It's definitely an interesting study.

--
http://www.bynarystudio.com
available online? by Hunter761 · 2010-06-18 04:15 · Score: 1

Where is the link, if this is available online?
Not quite there yet by btcoal · 2010-06-18 08:53 · Score: 1

Researches also asked Watson, "What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?"
It replied 41.9999999999, so I think the technology still has a ways to go.