Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM's Watson AI Implanted Into a Robot, Evolves, Can Now Sense Emotions (hothardware.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the domo-arigato dept.

bigwophh writes that IBM's Watson cognitive computing platform "is now more capable and human-like, especially when encapsulated in a robot body." An article from Hot Hardware reports that this week at NVIDIA's GPU Technology Conference, "We saw Watson in robot form respond to queries just like a human would, using not only speech but movement. When its dancing skills were called into question, the robot responded by showing off its Gangnam Style moves." After winning Jeopardy's million-dollar championship in 2011, Watson moved on to "more practical applications" like providing data-analyzing services for doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, and "the capabilities of what IBM has created are nothing short of amazing... Just like a real person, the underlying AI can get a read on people through movement and cognitive analysis of their speech. It can determine mood, tone, inflection, and so forth."

81 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. I'll believe it when I see it. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

    "the capabilities of what IBM has created are nothing short of amazing... Just like a real person, the underlying AI can get a read on people through movement and cognitive analysis of their speech. It can determine mood, tone, inflection, and so forth."

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    Thus far, emotional analysis is an over-hyped category and I am getting tired of marketers beating that dead horse over and over again.

    1. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At some point it's gonna figure out that scared humans listen to his suggestions more often than happy humans. Don't have to progress far from there and you have an evil overlord ruling it's subjects through fear.

      You just described American politics.

    2. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Skynet, eh? That's kind of funny is that is what people used to say about IBM. IBM was going to do big things and had done big things. Then, we all scoffed when they sold off to Lenovo. We all have pointed out the things they've done as business killing choices. We've stopped even calling them an Enterprise Solution.

      The other day, I was reading a post about someone saying they worked in multiple data centers and server rooms, for Fortune 50-500 companies, in the very recent past and that they looked around and couldn't see IBM anywhere. I don't know, I've been retired for 8 years. I did express my doubt but I didn't get a response from them.

      I really don't know if they're in the DC now or not. I find it hard to believe that they're not to be found.

      So, maybe it will be IBM on the side of the Skynet hardware after all. I am still a bit skeptical of the "nowhere to be found" claim.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by saloomy · · Score: 1

      I frequently work in one of the largest datacenter colocations in North America (www.supernap.com). I have access to multiple server room sectors, and can tell you without any shadow of a doubt, IBM is definitely one of the top 3 providers of server gear in there. I've worked in smaller datacenters as well where Dell and Supermicro reign supreme, but in these datacenters where Ebay, Sony N.A., and other 10,000 rack behemoths lurk, IBM is huge. Lots of IBM POWER, IBM Mainframe (still), and IBM Tape Backups. Some IBM Storage (though EMC and NetAPP take the cake there). The up-and-comming mega-supplier for servers though has to be cisco. I've seen so many of their blades installed recently, its amazing how fast they have entered that market.

    4. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by tomhath · · Score: 2

      You just described American politics

      Nothing particularly American about that, see North Korea for a better example.

    5. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      That's a hell of a way to talk about Obama. Racist much?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by shuz · · Score: 1

      IBM has lot's of expensive licensed software out there. In places where there isn't IBM hardware the software will be lurking in the shadows. IBM has mainly transitioned to a consulting firm. My guess is that hardware, especially things like laptops, are becoming commodity and harder to lock down with IP and just a few component manufacturers out there who make the real money. IBM puts a lot more focus these days on things that are very difficult to replicate or very easy to defend as IP. All the while making great returns on what it keeps. IBM is an old and savvy business and all of the decisions the business has made shows a lot of future insight to its competition. HP recently spun off their consumer line and likely will end up better for it.

      --
      There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    7. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      My emotions concerning Obama are neither fear nor hate. I feel disgusted, disappointed, and angry.

      Ignorant much?

    8. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's what I figure. I figure there's probably a whole lot of IBM hardware still hiding in dark shadows in those types of places. It just didn't seem probable when they indicated their observation. What's really amusing is that only a few of us were saying that IBM had probably made a brilliant move by getting out of hardware. At the very least, getting out of consumer and business grade workstations and portable devices was probably genius. Lots of people derided them for it at the time. (I got flamed pretty hard for pointing out that it might actually be a smart move for them.)

      A lot of people here seem to believe they're competent in a bunch of areas where they've no experience. There's more to a company than taking every bit of revenue available - and sometimes it's advantageous to actually slim down and that will cut your revenue stream - but it might increase your overall profit margins and, more importantly, it might allow you to focus your better staff on different things. Truth be told, there's a limit to skilled employees. Being able to best put them to work for you is probably a smart choice, even if it means lower revenue and fewer revenue sources. It really seams to matter a lot in the tech industry where things are very dynamic.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figured they were full of shit. I've been out of the data center for at least eight years - I sold and retired a little over eight years ago. I've a hard time believing that there's no IBM left in there. Even if it's just software or support contracts, I just wasn't buying it.

      Thank you for the confirmation. It's appreciated. It seemed really unlikely that IBM was completely gone. Shit, there's probably IBM hardware from the 90s (maybe even the 80s) still running in some of those places. They might be in dark shadows but they're out there. I really didn't want to believe them and had no way to confirm it at the time - and nobody else seemed to notice. So, I basically just ignored 'em after that.

      I've found my patience with stupid replies has started to wear thin as of late. 'Tis time to do something different for a while, lest I end up behaving in manners that are untoward and undesired in myself. It's okay, I've been working on a couple of projects as of late.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:I'll believe it when I see it. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He's more-or-less acted like the guy he promised to be before he was elected. Somewhat inexperienced, but inspirational to people, and he fights to reach his goals.
      Not much to feel disappointed about.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The software codes have no ability to sense whether it is a coffee can or a Abrams M1 Tank that hosts the code.

    This is just another example of, "My Cat Tricked Me, Therefore It is a Genus!".

    Ha ha ja ja

    1. Re:NO by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This thing can _fake_ certain simple things that humans can actually do. The deception is limited to simple standard-situations and is entirely shallow. It breaks down completely as soon as something unexpected happens. This thing is an automaton, no intelligence involved.

      Of course, some people want to make a log of money with this (and IBM desperately needs a lot of money as due to persistent mis-management almost everybody competent has left or been downsized), so this animistic nonsense about it being "intelligent" or "sensing" emotions is pushed hard.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:NO by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I don't watch a whole lot of movies unless they're documentaries but I did watch one, a recent one, and it was actually pretty good. You might like it, if you've never seen it. It's called Ex Machina and I believe it was a /.er who recommended it. If you haven't seen it then I shan't spoil it. It's about an Android that is both female and is a deep AI. It's also about her interaction with humans. What I appreciated most about it was that it was real science fiction. It left me questioning, thinking, and a choice about the impact it might have on a much larger scale.

      Would that I could and I'd attempt to describe it better but it is not easy to do without telling too much of it. It's really quite good. Hmm... I guess I can say that it has nudity. There's a reason to see it, right there. On a serious note, it was quite an interesting movie and I don't say that very often.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:NO by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Of course the "intelligence" displayed by AI programs is a trick. But then the "intelligence" displayed by humans is also a trick.

      For example, we believe that we make decisions with the conscious mind, but actually recent science shows that the subconcious mind makes decisions, leaving the conscious mind to make up plausible explanations for that decision, of asked. Yet the conscious mind doesn't know the real reason.

      Of course you could define intelligence as the particular set of tricks that the biological brain of higher species plays. And not the set of tricks that AI computers use. But that would be constructing the definition to force the outcome you want.

      Turing had the right idea. The Turing test only requires the appearance of intelligence. It doesn't try to define what's real intelligence and what's fake.

    4. Re:NO by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nah, I think this classifies as sci-fi. Not hard sci-fi but science fiction nonetheless. It's really quite an eye opener and, like a good science fiction work, gives you lots of additional questions. However, I'm not gonna force you to watch it or even try to urge you a second time. I will add that it's not really like you described. It's feasible, certainly. But you'd not know, unless you watched and you're unwilling to watch so I guess you'll have to believe that's what it is.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:NO by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Indeed. This thing can _fake_ certain simple things that humans can actually do. The deception is limited to simple standard-situations and is entirely shallow. It breaks down completely as soon as something unexpected happens. This thing is an automaton, no intelligence involved.

      I think you underestimate how much people do that really is based in rules and training, most people aren't really doing anything groundbreaking new. And particularly in a professional context their authority to be creative is often extremely limited where they'll have to either escalate or reject things that are out of the ordinary. If you're a star chef you set your own menu, if you're a pizza chef in a chain restaurat it's all regulated right down to how many slices of pepperoni goes on a pepperoni pizza. If you want an outlet in your shower, the electrician isn't going to get creative he'll just say that's not according to code and that's that.

      Maybe your car driving "automaton" only knows how to drive a car, your chef "automaton" to cook, your maid "automaton" to do housecleaning but if you keep adding the pieces I think you'll end up with a pretty slim slice that says "real" intellect.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. When if get's to smart will it try to kill the peo by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    When if get's to smart will it try to kill the people who it's feels are trying to trun it off.

  4. short circuit's number 5 could waltz by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    but seriously, what does "Gangnam Style moves", have to do with so called AI? such physical dexterity is mainly a feat of mechanical engineering , and can be ( and are) performed by robots without "AI".

    1. Re:short circuit's number 5 could waltz by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Nothing at all. But many people do not understand that, so stunts like this are added to improve the deception.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:short circuit's number 5 could waltz by Dantoo · · Score: 1

      "When its dancing skills were called into question, the robot responded by showing off its Gangnam Style moves."

      Yeah but then the crowd started to diss its ability get the upper hand in a physical contest. It said "I'll be back" and left the room.
      (Sound of truck revving up outside.)

    3. Re:short circuit's number 5 could waltz by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Because in the demo code there was this:
      if (asked_about_dancing())
      {
      do_gangam_style_dance();
      }

      This is ridiculous. That was just a demo hyping NVIDIA. Watson isn't AI, just like Siri isn't AI.

  5. "...Can Now Sense Emotions" by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Should have "in humans" as part of that, I misinterpreted that headline completely.

  6. Alternate Title by kamathln · · Score: 1

    'Skynet dances to "Gangam Style" '

  7. I speak for the internet when I ask: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can you fuck it?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:I speak for the internet when I ask: by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Depends. It might have a HOSTS file.

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:I speak for the internet when I ask: by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't then it will after you-know-who is done with it. You don't want to catch that, do you?

      So, practice safe hex when you do go getting it on.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  8. Probably nothing, but ... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    ... if Watson learned the Gangnam Style moves by watching videos, and independently decided when using them is appropriate, that would be extremely significant. I am assuming that is not the case. However, with advances taking place in deep learning, AIs may be doing just that in a few years.

  9. No need, it is already has people to protect it. by aberglas · · Score: 1

    If you go to IBM's labs and try to turn it off the police will take you away. If the machine becomes really smart it will convince people that it is important for national security and then be surrounded by armed guards.

    But that is all nonsense. Winning Jeopardy! was a milestone, but far from the end of the journey. And the rest is just marketing hype.

    Have a look at

    http://www.computersthink.com/

    For a more considered view. (Mention this post for a free copy.)

  10. Wrong question by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    More precisely, you could ask "What do Gangnam Style moves have to do with a journalist's for-profit article about AI?", and you might have a clearer answer.

    Flippancy aside, they're specifically researching emotional AI, and dancing has long been associated with emotional response in humans. Baby steps, but if machines and people are going to interact more smoothly in the future, it'd help if the software had some understanding of the causes and effects of human emotional reactions.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:Wrong question by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Flippancy aside, they're specifically researching emotional AI, and dancing has long been associated with emotional response in humans.

      So doesn't mass murder, so doesn't stomping of soldier's boots, so doesn't spousal abuse, so don't child rape, and so doesn't terrorism.

      Not that I'm worried about an AI causing harm, or at least more harm than humans, but it is mildly amusing to humor the thought.

      In fact, it was WWII that brought about America's "Greatest Generation." It seems really popular to say things like, "Make America Great Again!" That elicits emotional responses from a whole bunch of people. Some of them are even happy with the rhetoric.

      So, let's hope they used good data classifications and the goal is increased positive emotions instead of just increased emotions. They'd surely not overlook something so basic and trivial and it surely has no means of acting beyond what permissions the programmers have specifically granted. Nobody would make a basic mistake like that.

      I kid, I kid! Mostly...

      'Cause grabbing a toddler out of an audience and smashing its head off the ground would sure cause a whole lot of emotions. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. WHERE IS THE MONICAL?! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    And why does it sound like a woman when it's name is "Watson"

    1. Re:WHERE IS THE MONICAL?! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Most AI's emulate females, because experience shows that human beings, both male and female, relate better when the AI presents as female.

  12. Watson a questionable investment by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Financial analysts overall suggest Watson has been ho-hum as an investment. It may be worth more in PR than in actual products.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re: Watson a questionable investment by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Sunk costs are not the same as assets

    2. Re:Watson a questionable investment by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been wondering that too. IBM tries to talk it up, but I haven't seen any numbers like, "we made X billion off Watson this quarter"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: Watson a questionable investment by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As a platform it's already worth billions.

      If you don't have a link or citation to back this up, then you are the idiot. Do research before making random assertions.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  13. Lie Detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One of these days Watson will be used to monitor election debates..

  14. Did not "win" jeopardy by Etherwalk · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Let me know when it picks the winning lottery numbers. Then I'll be interested in purchasing.

    It did not "Win" the jeopardy game. Others knew the answers; Watson was just set up to buzz in faster than the other contestants.

    1. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      His point is accurate. Not to belittle the work that's gone into Watson, but having millisecond reflexes is certainly an advantage in a game where the winner is not the person with the most right answers, but the person who can buzz in the most quickly with the right answer. It would be interesting to see how the results changed if Watson were given "average human" reaction times to the buzzer.

    2. Re:Did not "win" jeopardy by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If all contestants knew the answers, they should run it again with more difficult questions.

    3. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by Etherwalk · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have no clue. The entire procedure is open records. The whole process is documented. NO ONE helped Watson once the game started. The entire team that created and set up Watson were in the audience. Watson had the ability to buzz in on its own - no help. This is a matter of public record. There is zero evidence that anything remotely shady was done for Watson to win. Educate yourself.

      I'm sorry, you misinterpreted my comment. I indicated "Others knew the answers" but followed this phrase with a colon (indicating a connection to the next phrase) and then "Watson was just set up to buzz in faster than the other contestants."

      This was not a statement that Watson did not produce the answers; it is a statement that he was engineered with an advantage (and the questions were too easy) such that the outcome of the game dependent not on scope of knowledge, but on the speed of buzz-in. The humans were all clicking in frustration as the machine was given the first chance to answer almost every question. It was an obviously faulty experimental design.

    4. Re:Did not "win" jeopardy by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    5. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are not familiar with Jeopardy. The ability to buzz in first is well known to as the key to winning matches. You need to educate yourself. You can only buzz in once the clue has been read completely and you are locked out if you try to buzz in even a fraction of a second earlier. If you can hit that sweet spot then you will win more often. Ask Ken Jennings. Guess what is really good at timing a reaction? A computer.

    6. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by DraconPern · · Score: 1

      How's the ability to buzz-in before anyone else a faulty design? Whoever buzz-in first gets the first crack at the answer. A lot of contestants will buzz even if they don't know the answer, but hope that they know the answer before the limit is up. Watson just so happens to be able to buzz-in faster than any human.

    7. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Because people want to see that Watson is really smarter, rather than faster. We already know computers are faster.

    8. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by nanter · · Score: 1

      A fair contest would have subjected Watson to a delay that would be equivalent to a human's average response time (how quickly a human can push his thumb down to activate the buzzer), however many milliseconds that would be.

    9. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by mattcoz · · Score: 1

      Yes it did "win" jeopardy. You can argue it had an advantage by having a superhuman reaction time, but it still followed the rules and won.

    10. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Did Watson read the questions from the display? Or was it fed messages that were phrased in a way it was specifically trained to parse and understand? I suspect the latter, it which case the entire show was rigged (but we already know that).

    11. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Didn't Watson have access to the internet while playing?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re: Did not "win" jeopardy by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Yes. This is explained in this Quora answer.

  15. Re:But will it by gweihir · · Score: 1

    As it is IBM, it will. After you have filled out all the forms and paid an outrageous amount of money.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  16. Points at Watson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hideki!

  17. Re:But will it by tlambert · · Score: 1

    open the damn pod bay doors when I want it to?

    No.

    H + 1 = I
    A + 1 = B
    L + 1 = M

    Thought everyone knew that...

  18. I sense your fear Luke by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    You must use this fear. It is your strength. together we will rule the galaxy.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  19. Re: Watson can't drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gotta love Slashdot AC telling Watson team they don't have a clue compared to him.

  20. may never reproduce brain capabibilities by dmahurin · · Score: 1

    "Artificial intelligence is sort of the holy grail of computing,
    and while we may never reproduce the human brain or it's capabilities in their entirety in electronic form"

    Stopped reading at this point, as the author has assumed that the "sort of holy grail of computing" is not possible.

    The human brain is not magic. I assume the author thinks otherwise.

    1. Re:may never reproduce brain capabibilities by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The human brain may not be magic, but we have absolutely no idea how it works, and until we figure that out, we can't replicate it other than by the traditional method of having a baby.

    2. Re:may never reproduce brain capabibilities by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I think we're a little bit further than "absolutely no idea", at least at the low level interaction between neurons. And once you understand the basics, it's quite feasible that you can start to replicate the results, even without understanding the whole thing. Our brains evolved from rodent-sized brains in a few million generations, without any planning or understanding. We could do something similar for artificial brains.

    3. Re:may never reproduce brain capabibilities by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      You can replicate the hardware, but then you have a dead brain. We don't even know where to start in terms of replicating the "software".

    4. Re:may never reproduce brain capabibilities by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The brain is only hardware. There is no software. And we do know where to start. Look at the Deepmind projects for instance. The trick is self learning, evolved networks and genetic algorithms. We're still behind the real brain in terms of learning efficiency and robustness, but we can improve that by studying small pieces of our brain that exhibit those behaviors, and then simply scaling up the hardware. That's how our own brain evolved. We're never going to understand the whole brain, simply because it's too big, so it would be stupid to try to achieve that first.

    5. Re:may never reproduce brain capabibilities by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Well, do you think there's anyone who completely understands a modern warship?

      No, but human engineering projects are all divided up into neat subsystems with small interfaces that one person can understand. Biological systems tend to be very messy in comparison.

  21. Skynet will most likely be cute by Z80a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SCI-FI generally take as a rule that an "AI will never understand human emotions" and thus write em like cold emotionless machines that crush human skulls with their metallic feet, but in reality, it's probably not that hard to manipulate humans by their emotions.
    Which means the Skynet probably will take the form of a friendly but horribly manipulative virtual creature that will make people commit suicide by just saying and showing the right things instead of wasting time and resource building robots.

    1. Re:Skynet will most likely be cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you see Ex-Machina?

  22. Re:When if get's to smart will it try to kill the by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    When if get's to smart will it try to kill the people who it's feels are trying to trun it off.

    Just make sure you bring your space helmet with you always.
     

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  23. Re:Is it coded similar to Microsoft by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I thought the meme (which is true but not really salient) was that IBM supplied equipment to track the logistics of the Nazi's/Hitler's Final Solution, among other things... Now Microsoft hates Jews? That seems a wee bit outlandish but it's your story, you can tell it any way you want to.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  24. Re:Yea by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but with your luck Watson would be a feminist and have a whole different reaction to a sexual reference than what are probably thinking.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  25. Re:But will it by saloomy · · Score: 1

    open the damn pod bay doors when I want it to?

    No.

    H + 1 = I A + 1 = B L + 1 = M

    Thought everyone knew that...

    Someone didn't learn maths in school: H + 1 = (H+1) A + 1 = (I+1) L + 1 = (L+1) You can't solve for H A or L give the functions above ;)

  26. For everybody by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    I use it every week to cook on weekends.

    https://www.ibmchefwatson.com/...

    You enter what you have in the fridge and pantry and it suggests meals to cook with fantastic combinations, that real chefs around the world are using too.

  27. Advanced technology or rigged demo? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Been following this Watson stuff for quite a while, and I still can't say which. Probably not magic, however. Even watched people "playing" with the Japanese Pepper robot in Softbank, and can't figure out if there is anything there. The users may not be sufficiently easily amused?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  28. Re: When if get's to smart will it try to kill the by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    No, it will kill the bad spellers first. Low hanging fruit.

  29. Re:When if get's to smart will it try to kill the by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    When if get's to smart will it try to kill the people who it's feels are trying to trun it off.

    No, but it will certainly take out people who use apostrophes like so much table salt.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  30. Re:"Watson" has become a meaningless marketing ter by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    You seem to think that a real AI project would only use one approach to AI. But of course they don't, any more than a human brain does. Watson undoubtably pulls on data-mining techniques, neural-nets, rule-based AI, scripts and many other techniques.

  31. Gangnam Style moves? by no-body · · Score: 1

    Hah! Can't lift a foot for this demo - look at any human doing this kind of move, they clearly lift their feet alternately off the ground and their system keeps balance, they don't fall over (most of the time, unless they are drunk or stoned).

    Now, what about the size of this thing - what kind of message are they trying to send with this? Beats me.

  32. can Watson now attend meetings? by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

    This might finally explain IBM's long game as they purge the company of now unneeded human consultants. It only seemed like a complete hollowing out of all institutional knowledge and ability to create customer satisfaction while pursuing a short sighted focus on quarterly numbers.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    1. Re:can Watson now attend meetings? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      ability to create customer satisfaction while pursuing a short sighted focus on quarterly numbers.

      But what if this both increases customer satisfaction, and results in an increase of quarterly numbers for the long term?

  33. Re:Defective island style spellers by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

    Boy, you're a dickhead. See this article on why some people say math and some say maths. Often we talk about the sciences (plural) when we refer to biology, physics, chemistry, etc. Others refer to maths like geometry, algebra, trig, calculus. Are they one or plural? Lots of English speakers use the plural.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  34. Re:"Watson" has become a meaningless marketing ter by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Follow the link and look for the email address therin!

  35. Re:No need, it is already has people to protect it by EETech1 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a great way to spend the rest of the night!
    Blackwood/.gmailDOTcom
    AT replaces site

    Thanks

  36. Re:"Watson" has become a meaningless marketing ter by aberglas · · Score: 1

    eh, the email that had somehow been deleted and was just added back ...

  37. Re:"Watson" has become a meaningless marketing ter by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Actually, one of the few accessible semi-technical papers on Watson claims that their main contribution to the field was in utilizing several different techniques and then selecting the best result from them. Not so much at the low level like neural-nets vs rule-based, more at the higher level of different engines.

    But Wason is what it is, and that aint everything.