Last night I watched NOVA on PBS and found myself completely taken in watching the program. That’s something rare for me these days when I watch a science program because almost always somebody figures out a way to work in climate change or global warming or Al Gore or catastrophic weather and ruins the moment. Last night’s episode was the rare exception.
Yes, in case you have not heard, IBM has created an AI machine to play Jeopardy!. Now mind you, this is not just any game of Jeopardy!, but a game against the two biggest superstars the program has ever produced; Ken Jennings, who won 74 games straight, and Brad Rutter, the all time money winner. The show debuts next week, on the Jeopardy! IBM Challenge, February 14, 15, and 16.
I was very impressed for two reasons:
- The strength of programming behind this machine
- The fact that this is a uniquely American achievement that we can be proud of
Watch this video of a test round with the players to get an idea of the scale of this accomplishment.
There’s lot’s more to learn at the IBM website here, it is fun learning about this great achievement and well worth the look. The strategy behind the programming was interesting too.
But what is it good for besides playing Jeopardy!?
The science behind the programming is pattern recognition combined with machine learning, and this feature, combined with a huge database of knowledge, may soon allow for a truly interactive computer that we’ve all come to know via SciFi like the ships computer on Star Trek. For example, a health care computer that could take in your symptoms and respond with a possible diagnosis.
Mark your calendar to watch Jeopardy! next week, this is science history being made.
Health care computer?
Look, based on your runny nose and sneezing it computes to you having a rectal dysfunction and so needs to amputate both legs. Bugs? But it’s running the latest version of HealthOS 7 and it already has the whole 640KB RAM. :p
MS/IBM – For a new angle but for a healthier world.
As someone who worked on some of the software (which comes from IBM’s Development Lab in Toronto), I’d like to point out that the assertion “The fact that this is a uniquely American achievement that we can be proud of” could annoy many IBMers worldwide who have contributed technology to this project. IBM has its headquarters in NY but almost any project the company runs of any significant size includes technology developed all over the world.
REPLY: Apologies, blame NOVA for not filming anywhere but at US locations. No mention of a worldwide effort – A
Barry Sheridan says:
February 10, 2011 at 3:18 am
If it works then the time is coming when the computer can run the economy. Perhaps then we can get some of the sensible solutions this world needs.
Maybe a supercomputer can overcome the “information problem” outlined by Friedrich Hayek, which says that central planners in a command economy can never possess all the information necessary to dictate exactly how each local transaction should occur. This better carried out by local actors deriving information from the prices of goods and services. See: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hayek.htm
Perhaps a supercomputer could do this, but it still probably wouldn’t be able to take into account all the subjective (human) decisions that go into each transaction.
On the theme of uniquely American achievement I’d like to bring your attention to the rescue of Apollo 13 over 40 years ago.
“A phone call for assistance was made to the University of Toronto Institute of Aerospace Studies on April 16, 1970.
The team was engaged to figure out crucial calculations needed to separate Apollo’s command module from its lunar module to allow them to return safely to Earth.
”
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/10/tech-apollo-13-honour.html
“You can get the same results by googling the questions.”
Here is the google for Watson, “About 105,000,000 results”.
You get to choose which is the right one.
IBM has built and programed (hopefully) Watson to pick the correct answer.
One of the most important skills in Jeopardy is being able to press the button at exactly the right moment. What advantage does the machine have in this regard?
Sabril>
“I doubt it’s that simple. Besides, Google itself uses very sophisticated search algorithms.”
It really is that simple – try it. I checked a good-sized sample of the questions and found that the simple directions I provided will give the same results. You’re right that Google’s tech is impressive – my point was that playing Jeopardy with it isn’t a big deal.
Vis-a-vis the importance of hitting the buzzer correctly, check out this page:
http://www.pisspoor.com/buzzer.html
The author estimates that 90% of the contestants know the answer to any given question, so it’s all in the buzzer.
Impressive, but wake me up when an AI device can compose a piece of music and then have a conversation about it 🙂
Could it match a human Jeopardy champion who had Google at his disposal? Sure it might be quicker, but if you modified the game just a bit, a human could do a google search, scan the results, pick the relevant one, beat the semiconductors out of the machine.
Oh, great. So a few years from now, I’ll walk by the laptops and desktops and they’ll all try to sell themselves to me. Next the phones, and cameras. The phone will tell you how you blew it with your girlfriend. The digital camera will tell you to point the camera a little farther to the left and zoom in a touch.
Oh, crap, and my car will nag me about stomping on the gas and braking too hard. Naturally, the EPA regs will require the car announce how every mile per hour over the speed limit uses up so much more gas and makes that nasty CO2. And it might just keep arguing with you. I’m not sure which synthetic car voice would be worse, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. Anybody remember “My Mother the Car”?
40 comments and no “Skynet” references?
Just subject the AI to the old Star-Trek computer-destroying sequence of comments:
Watson, everything I say is a lie. Now listen carefully, I’m lying…..
Zzzzt, pffttt, omphffff…..BANG!
Wow, the Youtube session with Watson vs. the Champs is great!
Read the article by Stephen Wolfram I linked, above. It is mentioned that about 20% of the questions could be answered correctly with some version of the top Google answer.
Making wrong guesses on Jeopardy is very punitive. The value of the clue is deducted from your existing balance, and the others get to try to get it right. Hence the title of the game.
“I’m sorry, Dave. I can’t do that.”
We’ve been warned.
beng;
I suspect Watson has been given a “resolver” for such attacks. Automatically substitute “some things” for “everything”, and the problem goes away. A defense against “the excluded middle” fallacy.
Great Achievement? Absolutely!!!!
Wonder what our Chinese Masters will do with it? (Or should I say, “are doing with it”?)
DocattheAutopsy says:
40 comments and no “Skynet” references?
Wasn’t it referenced by Dave Wendt?
…rather than a medical expert system they should go for a political one, so we could get rid of the whole flock of bone heads we’re stuck with now.
Seems to me the buzzer advantage is a huge one – whether Watson can buzz in electrically, or uses a mechanical “thumb” to press the button, variability in reaction time is practically eliminated.
Also, how will the computer be answering? Are they going to have a “Wargames”-style simulated voice? I suppose Watson could start off the show by asking “Shall we play a game?”
DirkH says:
February 10, 2011 at 4:17 am
When i read the headline i immediately thought of Bob Watson, former IPCC chairman. Will IBM name the next version Pachy? 😉
###
Tomas J. Watson, founder of IBM.
I wonder what Watson’s source of “objective facts” is. I wonder if it is capable of discovering obvious inconsistencies in the text it is fed as fact and is able to infer Truth when fed a very large amount of propaganda text, and a small amount of skeptical text. For example under the heading of “Climate Change”, if the clue read “The cause of recent gradual warming of the planet earth”. I wonder if Watson would buzz in and respond quickly with “What is CO2?”, or “What is anthropogenic fossil fuel consumption?” or rather, if it would respond with “What is normal natural variability?” or “What is “no one knows for certain yet”?”
I wonder how deep Watson’s “reasoning” is?
It is the health care part that scares me. Computers are great but I would not want to bet my healthcare on IBM. Come to think of it the same goes for finance.
[After killing the rest of the crew] Look, Dave, I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.
Just think what we have now. UK Met office super computor, off-spring of Hal.
About the thumb+button problem: I propose that Watson’s responses be put through a 100ms delay circuit to even things out. 😉