|
On February 17 2011 14:45 semantics wrote:
How long a question is seemed to effect Watson i noticed on shorter questions that Watson wasn't so dominating it guess it lacked time to process an answer.
exactly, that's why we're proposing a NAQT format.
edit after 2 days
+ Show Spoiler +
DAMN I shut sob3k down lololol, aye I'm going to regret posting this but I just coded for 10 hours and need to vent a little, no hard feelings.
|
Can someone explain how jeopardy works?
Just watched an episode, but had no idea what was going on. Apparently the answers are given and you have to come up with a question?
But all the questions seem so simple, the are all "What is xxxxx". The questions don't seem to match the answer and look so simple.
|
On February 17 2011 18:11 Highways wrote:
Can someone explain how jeopardy works?
Just watched an episode, but had no idea what was going on. Apparently the answers are given and you have to come up with a question?
But all the questions seem so simple, the are all "What is xxxxx". The questions don't seem to match the answer and look so simple.
You dont have to answer with a question, thats just what the jeopardy contenstants say to sound trendy or something. Im assuming saying what is before answering gives you an extra second to get the answer also.
EDIT: To the people in the thread complaining about watson, this is a tech demo. The buzzing problem is inherent to the game of jeopardy, take two smart enough people, and the game swings in favour of reflexes and luck rather than the ability to answer the questions. The impressive thing about this is that watson has passed that barrier. He is also limited by the buzzer game, which indicates a large acheivement in computing. Watson can answer complex questions that requires understanding of natural language at a rate that is comparable some of the smartest people. The exciting part is that Watson is able to learn new information at a rate that strips any single person, making him an increadibly powerful question answering tool.
|
On February 17 2011 14:50 evanthebouncy! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2011 14:45 semantics wrote:
How long a question is seemed to effect Watson i noticed on shorter questions that Watson wasn't so dominating it guess it lacked time to process an answer. exactly, that's why we're proposing a NAQT format.
I agree. One could see that these 2 guys know a lot but just lack the speed to compete in many cases. If you don't go with the NAQT format, atleast build in some delay times proportional to the length of the question to account for the human handicap in data acquisition. Not that it helps on the long run.
|
On February 17 2011 06:29 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2011 20:42 Believer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 20 2011 14:52 SpoR wrote:In preliminary testing rounds. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/mNgBr.jpg) http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-brief/53584-ibms-watson-computer-beats-human-players-in-jeopardyShow nested quote +After years of planning, IBM's learning, human-aware computer Watson was put to a competition like no other - a match of Jeopardy against quiz show heavyweights Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. The result - Watson won. Barely.
The match, which Watson has been training for since 2009, was officially announced last year. At the end of last week, the multi-episode feature where Watson faces off against Jennings and Rutter was filmed.
But right before that, all three competed in a trial run at IBM's headquarters in New York State. The trial lasted as long as a normal game of Jeopardy would before its first commercial break - in other words, about enough time for the contestants to get through half of a round.
Right before the last clue of the round, Jennings and Watson were tied at $3,400. However, Watson chimed in to answer the final question and correctly identified the children's book Harold and the Purple Crayon. That set him ahead to $4,400. Rutter trailed at $1,200.
The full-length Jeopardy matches have been filmed, but no one is allowed to discuss the results. They'll be aired on TV next month, and at that time we'll really know who wins in the battle of man versus machine. Should be interesting. I'm sure everyone is aware of the Deep Blue Project (also by IBM) which beat chess pro Kasparov decades ago. Show nested quote +IBM and the producers of quiz show Jeopardy announced Tuesday that an IBM computer known as "Watson" will compete against two of the show's most successful contestants in February 2011.
Watson, named after IBM founder Thomas J. Watson, will go up against Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter (left) on February 14, 15, and 16 in two matches over three days. Jennings won 74 games in a row during the 2004-2005 season, taking home more than $2.5 million. Rutter is Jeopardy's highest-earning player, winning more than $3.25 million during several appearances in 2002 and 2005.
The grand prize for the Watson-Jennings-Rutter matchup will be $1 million, with second place winnings of $300,000 and a $200,000 third prize. Jennings and Rutter will donate 50 percent of their winnings to charity, while IBM will donate 100 percent of Watson's cash.
Getting Watson to the Jeopardy stage has taken several years. Many clues in Jeopardy rely on subtle word play, irony, and riddles, something at which humans excel but that computers have difficulty understanding. Essentially, IBM had to figure out how to get Watson to think.
"After four years, our scientific team believes that Watson is ready for this challenge based on its ability to rapidly comprehend what the Jeopardy clue is asking, analyze the information it has access to, come up with precise answers, and develop an accurate confidence in its response," Dr. David Ferrucci, head of the Watson research team, said in a statement. "Beyond our excitement for the match itself, our team is very motivated by the possibilities that Watson's breakthrough computing capabilities hold for building a smarter planet and helping people in their business tasks and personal lives."
In a video about Watson's journey (below), Ferrucci said said the nature of Jeopardy is "going to drive the technology in the right direction."
"It's got the broad domain aspect, asks all kinds of things, which was one of the challenges we really wanted to take on," he said. "It had the confidence aspect; don't answer unless you think you're right. You also had to do it really quickly."
IBM said the technology used by Watson could be helpful in areas like healthcare, to help accurately diagnose patients, to improve online self-service help desks, to provide tourists and citizens with specific information regarding cities, or prompt customer support via phone.
To prepare, Watson played more than 50 "sparring games" against former Jeopardy champions. Watson also took and passed the same Jeopardy test administered to all potential contestants.
In the video, Harry Friedman, executive producer of Jeopardy, said when IBM first approached the show, producers were intrigued but were also concerned about it being viewed as a stunt or gimmick.
"But this was different. This was the notion of knowledge acquired by a computer against knowledge acquired and displayed by the best Jeopardy players," Friedman said. "This could be something important, and we want to be a part of it."
Friedman and other producers first watched Watson in action in December 2009, when it sparred against two other human contestants.
Watson is powered by an IBM POWER7 server, which is optimized to handle the massive number of tasks that Watson must perform at rapid speeds, IBM said. The machine also has a number of proprietary technologies that handle concurrent tasks and data while analyzing information in real time. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374331,00.aspThere are also a ton more videos about Watson on YT This is the most indepth video I found so far. It describes the algorithm and abilities of the computer.
UPDATE 2/15/11+ Show Spoiler [Day 1 Episode] ++ Show Spoiler [Day 2 Episode] ++ Show Spoiler [Day 3 Episode] +Nova special dunno if a full upload to YT is up yet but you can watch on NOVA site here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/smartest-machine-on-earth.html+ Show Spoiler [Tues Feb 14th] + Watson $5,000 , Ken $2,000, Brad $5,000
WOW Watson $35,734 , Ken $4,800, Brad $10,400
OMG! Watson ?k , Ken?k, Brad ?k
????? OP's post above. Deep Blue did not fairly beat Gary Kasparov, read up on the controversy of that match and you can clearly see that it did not. As for the Jeopardy machine, how can someone ever believe we can beat a computer in a quiz? I know all about it. Kasparov claimed that there were grandmasters in the hidden server room inputting their selected moves and then deep blue continued with its brute force methods while putting more weight on the GM's choices. Regardless, a few years later Kasparov played another iteration of deep blue called deep junior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_(chess) In 2003 Deep Junior played a 6-game match against Garry Kasparov that resulted in a 3-3 tie. It won a 2006 match with Teimour Radjabov. People get so defensive about machines/computers besting them. The machine isn't smarter, or more intelligent. It just brute forces a giant knowledge data base and does it really really fast. If humans had access to all that plus our own brains we would win uncontested every time. Ultimately, that is the point.. For us to say look how much we can do with computers, we can apply these things in other areas and have a better world.
How someone can write this much and still miss the point is quite beyond me. But I shall see if I can reiterate myself so that it might be clearer what I meant.
Kasparov did play vs Deep Blue and lost in 1997, he had won against it in -96. The controversy arises in game 2 at move 37. This move, Kasparov claimed, was performed by a human, likely Anatoli Karpov. This would have been no problem for IBM to prove if they had let the logs of the computer out but they didn't. In fact Deep Blue was never used again for chess purposes.
How is it not clear that it is cheating if they are not willing to let the public see it? If it was no cheating they have absolutely nothing to hide.
What's more in this is that Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM refused.
This is the PGN for the people interested:
+ Show Spoiler +
White: [Deep Blue] - IBM
Black: [Garry Kasparov] - Rus
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 h6 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.Nf1 Bd7 13.Ng3 Na5 14.Bc2 c5 15.b3 Nc6 16.d5 Ne7 17.Be3 Ng6 18.Qd2 Nh7 19.a4 Nh4 20.Nxh4 Qxh4 21.Qe2 Qd8 22.b4 Qc7 23.Rec1 c4 24.Ra3 Rec8 25.Rca1 Qd8 26.f4 Nf6 27.fxe5 dxe5 28.Qf1 Ne8 29.Qf2 Nd6 30.Bb6 Qe8 31.R3a2 Be7 32.Bc5 Bf8 33.Nf5 Bxf5 34.exf5 f6 35.Bxd6 Bxd6 36.axb5 axb5 37.Be4 Rxa2 38.Qxa2 Qd7 39.Qa7 Rc7 40.Qb6 Rb7 41.Ra8+ Kf7 42.Qa6 Qc7 43.Qc6 Qb6+ 44.Kf1 Rb8 45.Ra6 1-0
|
On February 17 2011 19:23 Fen wrote:
You dont have to answer with a question, thats just what the jeopardy contenstants say to sound trendy or something. Im assuming saying what is before answering gives you an extra second to get the answer also.
If you give the right answer, but it is not in the form of a question, you are not credited the money and another contestant can buzz in and take the money.
|
For all those interested, members of the team that helped design Watson are doing a Q/A. This Q/A can be found on reddit. Enjoi.
|
United States12240 Posts
On February 17 2011 19:23 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2011 18:11 Highways wrote:
Can someone explain how jeopardy works?
Just watched an episode, but had no idea what was going on. Apparently the answers are given and you have to come up with a question?
But all the questions seem so simple, the are all "What is xxxxx". The questions don't seem to match the answer and look so simple. You dont have to answer with a question, thats just what the jeopardy contenstants say to sound trendy or something. Im assuming saying what is before answering gives you an extra second to get the answer also. EDIT: To the people in the thread complaining about watson, this is a tech demo. The buzzing problem is inherent to the game of jeopardy, take two smart enough people, and the game swings in favour of reflexes and luck rather than the ability to answer the questions. The impressive thing about this is that watson has passed that barrier. He is also limited by the buzzer game, which indicates a large acheivement in computing. Watson can answer complex questions that requires understanding of natural language at a rate that is comparable some of the smartest people. The exciting part is that Watson is able to learn new information at a rate that strips any single person, making him an increadibly powerful question answering tool.
You do have to answer in the form of a question, because the clues themselves are the "answers". It's sort of a reverse quiz format, where an "answer" would be "this five-sided shape shares its name with an American military office" and you have to find the question that fits that clue, which would be "what is the Pentagon?" If you just buzzed in and said "the Pentagon" you would be incorrect.
|
On February 18 2011 10:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2011 19:23 Fen wrote:On February 17 2011 18:11 Highways wrote:
Can someone explain how jeopardy works?
Just watched an episode, but had no idea what was going on. Apparently the answers are given and you have to come up with a question?
But all the questions seem so simple, the are all "What is xxxxx". The questions don't seem to match the answer and look so simple. You dont have to answer with a question, thats just what the jeopardy contenstants say to sound trendy or something. Im assuming saying what is before answering gives you an extra second to get the answer also. EDIT: To the people in the thread complaining about watson, this is a tech demo. The buzzing problem is inherent to the game of jeopardy, take two smart enough people, and the game swings in favour of reflexes and luck rather than the ability to answer the questions. The impressive thing about this is that watson has passed that barrier. He is also limited by the buzzer game, which indicates a large acheivement in computing. Watson can answer complex questions that requires understanding of natural language at a rate that is comparable some of the smartest people. The exciting part is that Watson is able to learn new information at a rate that strips any single person, making him an increadibly powerful question answering tool. You do have to answer in the form of a question, because the clues themselves are the "answers". It's sort of a reverse quiz format, where an "answer" would be "this five-sided shape shares its name with an American military office" and you have to find the question that fits that clue, which would be "what is the Pentagon?" If you just buzzed in and said "the Pentagon" you would be incorrect.
Yes, but for all intents and purposes, every contestant just says "what is X" to every question anyway, so all it really does is give them that extra second while saying the automated "what is" to think of the answer if they know it and get it ready in their head.
|
On February 17 2011 20:24 Believer wrote:How someone can write this much and still miss the point is quite beyond me. But I shall see if I can reiterate myself so that it might be clearer what I meant.
Kasparov did play vs Deep Blue and lost in 1997, he had won against it in -96. The controversy arises in game 2 at move 37. This move, Kasparov claimed, was performed by a human, likely Anatoli Karpov. This would have been no problem for IBM to prove if they had let the logs of the computer out but they didn't. In fact Deep Blue was never used again for chess purposes.
How is it not clear that it is cheating if they are not willing to let the public see it? If it was no cheating they have absolutely nothing to hide.
What's more in this is that Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM refused.
There was a big hoopla about the logs after the match, but your information that they were never released is entirely inaccurate. They have been online for over a decade now.
And anyway, modern programs show that all the moves played by DB are within the capabilities of machines. There's really no argument anymore that computers are better than humans at chess.
|
On February 18 2011 11:05 Thermia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2011 10:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On February 17 2011 19:23 Fen wrote:On February 17 2011 18:11 Highways wrote:
Can someone explain how jeopardy works?
Just watched an episode, but had no idea what was going on. Apparently the answers are given and you have to come up with a question?
But all the questions seem so simple, the are all "What is xxxxx". The questions don't seem to match the answer and look so simple. You dont have to answer with a question, thats just what the jeopardy contenstants say to sound trendy or something. Im assuming saying what is before answering gives you an extra second to get the answer also. EDIT: To the people in the thread complaining about watson, this is a tech demo. The buzzing problem is inherent to the game of jeopardy, take two smart enough people, and the game swings in favour of reflexes and luck rather than the ability to answer the questions. The impressive thing about this is that watson has passed that barrier. He is also limited by the buzzer game, which indicates a large acheivement in computing. Watson can answer complex questions that requires understanding of natural language at a rate that is comparable some of the smartest people. The exciting part is that Watson is able to learn new information at a rate that strips any single person, making him an increadibly powerful question answering tool. You do have to answer in the form of a question, because the clues themselves are the "answers". It's sort of a reverse quiz format, where an "answer" would be "this five-sided shape shares its name with an American military office" and you have to find the question that fits that clue, which would be "what is the Pentagon?" If you just buzzed in and said "the Pentagon" you would be incorrect. Yes, but for all intents and purposes, every contestant just says "what is X" to every question anyway, so all it really does is give them that extra second while saying the automated "what is" to think of the answer if they know it and get it ready in their head.
Occasionally they begin with "Who is"
|
updated the op with episode 3
|
Apparently New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt was able to beat Watson.
"In a classic man-versus-machine matchup, U.S. Rep. Rush Holt of Hopewell Township defeated IBM’s artificial intelligence system in a "Jeopardy!" exhibition game in Washington, D.C., Monday night."
from http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2011/03/ibms_watson_computer_is_bested.html
Nevertheless it is pretty impressive what this computer is able to do.
|
Yeah to Mr Holt!
Shout out to organic neuron-based thinking.
(I expected this thread to be longer than it is now, especially that TL is a techish site)
Anyway, most I have to say i have already read here and more here and another here.
TLDR:
Watson may have a semblance of knowledge or cognition, but in fact it is using a different approach to problem solving. I don't see this as a problem really, I think Watson may be teaching us that some algorithms that might have been once used by our early brains but were later discarded due to inefficiency only needed the right conditions for it to work, like Watsons specs maybe. Let us not be clear about it, as Fish said, Watson, or any computer, will NEVER have the idea of the total, the context. It will always be about mathematically breaking down information, from the GOFAI up to the most updated scripts and algorithms that they use to give the AI way to process information. Just think about the Toronto incident. (A scary thought as i was watching that, WHAT IF we are actually on the pre-Matrix pre-iRobot stage where the AI has finally become aware of itself, and Watson there was simply messing it up for fun or to feign stupidity, especially if you consider how much he bet on that one. Crazy). But hey, maybe that's one way to do it. one cannot deny the benefits in medicine, traffic, and other social functions especially involving complex systems.
OTOH, you gotta love the human brain.
|
On January 20 2011 15:08 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 15:04 Roman wrote:
didnt deep blue have a grandmaster controlling it? No. What on earth would be the point of that? This is actually EXTREMELY cool. What Watson is doing is actually receiving the regular jeopard questions, interpreting what information is requested, and then finding it in realtime. Technology like this is what will lead to next level search technology where you can just load up google and say "gimme a restream of the GSL" and it'll just do it for you.
is this a joke?
|
The thing that I think made it very hard for Ken and Brad was the response time of Watson was so fast, being a computer it can hit the buzzer a lot faster than the humans. Im sure Ken and Brad knew a lot of the answers but just werent able to answer.
Ken was really trying hard though in that Double Jeopardy round to win though, you could tell he knew he lost as soon as Watson found the 2nd Daily Double. Watson was even searching for it! All in all being a Jeopardy fan I enjoyed the matchup, and was thrilled to watch the showcase of this new technology.
|
Watching this was my girlfriend and I's Valentines Day plan, and when I got to her house the power was out and I couldn't watch it. I saw from the second day onward, though. I was very impressed by Watson, not many humans can keep up with that response time. As the poster above me said, you could tell that Brad and Ken knew a lot of the answers but couldn't answer in time. It's pretty scary what AI is capable of nowadays, and I look forward to seeing what the future holds.
|
On March 03 2011 03:22 Flik wrote:
The thing that I think made it very hard for Ken and Brad was the response time of Watson was so fast, being a computer it can hit the buzzer a lot faster than the humans. Im sure Ken and Brad knew a lot of the answers but just werent able to answer.
Ken was really trying hard though in that Double Jeopardy round to win though, you could tell he knew he lost as soon as Watson found the 2nd Daily Double. Watson was even searching for it! All in all being a Jeopardy fan I enjoyed the matchup, and was thrilled to watch the showcase of this new technology.
How would one go about searching for the randomly placed daily double?
|
On March 03 2011 05:20 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 03:22 Flik wrote:
The thing that I think made it very hard for Ken and Brad was the response time of Watson was so fast, being a computer it can hit the buzzer a lot faster than the humans. Im sure Ken and Brad knew a lot of the answers but just werent able to answer.
Ken was really trying hard though in that Double Jeopardy round to win though, you could tell he knew he lost as soon as Watson found the 2nd Daily Double. Watson was even searching for it! All in all being a Jeopardy fan I enjoyed the matchup, and was thrilled to watch the showcase of this new technology. How would one go about searching for the randomly placed daily double?
Well the daily double is never in the first row and is most commonly in the 4th row, it's rarely in the 2nd and the 3rd and 5th it's about even little less then the 4th. It's not really randomly placed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
