tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post4434748503017479685..comments2024-03-22T19:23:04.610-04:00Comments on Room for Doubt: Elementary, My Dear Watson?Lev Reyzinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09629175455869565423noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post-72204025909725099292011-03-10T10:32:52.718-05:002011-03-10T10:32:52.718-05:00Unrelated to the present post, but Google found fo...Unrelated to the present post, but Google found for me on your twitter the answer to the question I was wondering about when rereading Valiant's theory of the learnable: "who coined the term PAC?" Thanks for your answer! /JanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post-63649430747910612082011-02-16T13:07:43.073-05:002011-02-16T13:07:43.073-05:00Lev: Watson has an unfair (in terms of what the co...Lev: Watson has an unfair (in terms of what the competition is really about) advantage in reaction time and Ken and Brad have an unfair advantage in hearing Trebek speak, and thus timing their button press to beat Watson's reaction time (rather rarely, it turns out).<br />It would be quite a coincidence if those advantages perfectly canceled out and yielded a fair game, right?<br /><br />But maybe it's not so different from the other stark asymmetry here: Humans are vastly better at actually understanding what is being asked, and vastly worse at knowing the answer when Watson is lucky enough to understand the question.<br /><br />Put Watson and a human (any human) *together* and you really have a quantum leap forward in question answering. (The human, for example, would nix Watson's pathetic "Toronto" as an answer to a "What U.S. city..." question.)dreeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13007296061332653169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post-76770710647557293672011-02-16T11:49:05.312-05:002011-02-16T11:49:05.312-05:00...except for that bogus inability to use contract......except for that bogus inability to use contractions =)Yisong Yuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112299585878991257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post-61887060767813990102011-02-16T10:38:52.303-05:002011-02-16T10:38:52.303-05:00Exactly! I actually think that Star Trek's mu...Exactly! I actually think that Star Trek's musings on what Data could and couldn't do weren't terribly far off.Lev Reyzinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09629175455869565423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post-78777337641295634022011-02-16T10:18:15.150-05:002011-02-16T10:18:15.150-05:00I'd like to see a computer beat a comedian at ...I'd like to see a computer beat a comedian at telling jokes.Yisong Yuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112299585878991257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post-52011604454617417282011-02-16T08:48:20.156-05:002011-02-16T08:48:20.156-05:00Thanks, Dan. Sounds like an interesting rule tweak...Thanks, Dan. Sounds like an interesting rule tweak. Ken and Brad have a lot of experience buzzing and they almost never beat Watson. But actually I think the buzzer is fair game. I just have a problem with the 2 humans vs 1 computer ratio.<br /><br />As for hindsight bias, I somewhat agree. I tried to address this point -- that soon we'll get used to computers doing whatever they do next and it will become natural. Funnily enough, many people still consider Go a "human game" and will be completely shocked when a computer can win.Lev Reyzinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09629175455869565423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32371144.post-2983460620372993342011-02-16T06:09:22.986-05:002011-02-16T06:09:22.986-05:00It may be hindsight bias to say "chess seems ...It may be hindsight bias to say "chess seems like one of those activities that computers should be good at". Isn't there one of Asimov's "I, Robot" stories where robots could run around and give kids piggy back rides and whatnot but were not so advanced that they could play chess?<br /><br />Great write-up of the Jeopardy match, by the way!<br /><br />But speaking of hindsight bias, although the buzzer seems to be turning out to be an unfair advantage for Watson, the humans have a related unfair advantage: They can anticipate the moment the buzzers are activated (when Trebek finishes reading the question) and buzz in faster than is possible for even Watson to react. Of course if they buzz in too early they're locked out for a fraction of a second.<br /><br />What's really needed is a rule tweak: Everyone who buzzes in within the first fraction of a second after the buzzers are activated is considered to have buzzed in simultaneously and the tie is broken randomly. Or, simpler, just eliminate the lock-out -- buzzing in before the buzzers are activated is just treated as buzzing in at the exact moment the buzzers are activated.dreeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13007296061332653169noreply@blogger.com