Men v. Machine(s): The Rest of the Story?

by Edward Goldstick

First, this is a "prologue" that I wrote on Monday but that did not get posted (I didn't understand the process yet):

I didn't get home fast enough to do more than enter my "guess" before the fireworks start ... so here goes: with one caveat, I expect that Watson will win decisively. The caveat is that there will be no explicit delay built into the "button" for the machine. More on this in a "real" post in a moment... but I want to save this for posterity. @19:29 Eastern on Monday, February 14, 2010

Now that the results are known, it seems superfluous to recount what has transpired; instead, a few personal conjectures that reflect my three biggest surprises after watching (and after a bit of further reading):

1. There apparently was, in fact, an electronic servomechanism that mechanically pushed the button for Watson, but did it contain a delay equivalent to a human reflex time?

Is this a new definition of "being human?" Though I have watched Jeopardy! since I was a wee lad, this puts a new light on the notion that "finding the right question" is often more important than elucidating an answer.

2. The arbitration of results from multiple, while apparently distinct, algorithms that "add up" to a confidence factor for a "correct" answer (or "question," in Jeopardy! parlance) ... but then again, I do not remember seeing any mention of "translation" from one human tongue to another as a "natural" application of Watson's computing power.

3. Ken and Brad really didn't stand a chance ... and yes, I was rooting for them!

The Big Question, of course, is the one posed by Brian Christian in his fascinating article in the current edition of The Atlantic [(though I don't get paid for this... subscribe!]: Does this constitute a valid Turing Test? I say "yes and no" on the following terms:

- Yes if we consider the few "dumb" answers (Toronto in the U.S.?) though players on Jeopardy! sometimes do put up wisecrack answers in Final Jeopardy when they are befuddled. And Watson did, after all, bet very little!

- No quite simply because Watson did not participate in the banter or answer any questions during the interludes. Or maybe it is just shy?

As in the previous post on the "IBM/Jeopardy! Challenge", here are "running notes" that I took while watching Days Two and Three...

Day Two: 

IBM publicity:
... The Apollo Project:  "IBM played a big part..." - well, so did public financing, no?
"Open Question Answering"
"When we pursue natural language, we pursue the heart of human intelligence"...
... Some basic thoughts:
Is the ambiguity of the category as complicated/important as anything/everything else?
Just how much does Watson continue to process before the first question and between questions?

And now, DOUBLE JEOPARDY...

3 / 23 / 2 ... 2

... and Sheesh, Watson is so far ahead in $$ that I didn't note it down...

Some random thoughts and observations before Final Jeopardy:

... is there a "warming up" time for the human brain?
... MY WIFE GOT "MODERN ART" when all three guessed something and got it wrong!
... "Information overload is the problem of our day..." (don't be such a wet towel...)
... no mention of translation in the IBM ads (so far)
... How can the computer fail at Final Jeopardy if it now has 30 seconds to guess.

And now, the first FINAL JEOPARDY...

... US City w/ airports named for WWII hero and WWII battle = O'Hare and Midway = CHICAGO
... Category is "U.S. Cities"... and Watson selects "TORONTO????"
... but when in the lead and in doubt, don't tempt it!

Day Three:

JEOPARDY:  10 / 11 / 8 ... 2

... There sure seemed to be some simple questions that he... eh, it... came up blank...
... Did they "turn down" Watson to make it more competitive?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY:  7 / 18  / 4 ... 0

... Apparently not.

FINAL JEOPARDY: 

... Ken has about $18000 to Watson's $25000, and Brad's still in it... So it could be fun?!
... But of course, our "new computer overlord" has won!  H/t to Ken Jennings...

Epilogue:

Discuss Brian Christian's article... what is "human intelligence", anyway?

Discuss Fast Company article: http://www.fastcompany.com/node/1726969/print
... from one year ago
... "programmed delay"
... electromechanical hand?

Discuss Infoworld article: http://www.infoworld.com/print/151798

... "How IBM's Watson hammered its 'Jeopardy' foes"

- Explain why "Machine(s)" versus "Machine"

- Discuss latency as a "human" factor that "reflects" morality and wisdom (wow...)
... example in the "markets"
... in memory of John Boyd (OODA Loop is a feedback loop... but still a synchronous concept)
... in "life" ("Wait... count to ten... and then decide/act")

Edward Goldstick is a veteran of the high-tech, software, defense, and energy-technology worlds in the U.S. and France.

Presented by

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for The Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.

Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

Video

Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

Video

Pittsburgh: 'Better Than You Thought'

How Steel City became a bikeable, walkable paradise

Video

A Four-Dimensional Tour of Boston

In this groundbreaking video, time moves at multiple speeds within a single frame.

Video

Who Made Pop Music So Repetitive? You Did.

If pop music is too homogenous, that's because listeners want it that way.

More in Technology

From This Author

Just In