On 14/02/2011 1:55 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> On 2/14/2011 12:05 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>> My feeling is that the amount of processing power (CPU's and memory) in
>> Watson applied to Go would probably yield a winning player. We are now
>> at a point where the tree pruning does not have to be very aggressive to
>> achieve a reasonable time between moves.
> Go really is orders of magnitude more difficult than chess.
> Wikipedia has a long article about the challenges and the
> lack of progress in even coming close to the professional
>> Would it get "What is 42?" as the question corresponding to
>> "The ultimate question of life and everything, the universe
>> and everything."
> It might, but it certainly wouldn't understand why 42
> is the answer.
>> I suspect that the impact of Watson on Ontology as a field
>> can be negative or positive. It shows that you can get answers
>> to questions using data that is much less structured than
>> the traditional languages used for ontology research.
> That's a point I've been trying to get across on Ontolog Forum
> for years: Precision in ontology is appropriate when you have
> a precisely defined subject -- such as a computer program,
> an airplane design, or a bank account.
> But a top-down, monolithic, detailed, universal ontology of everything
> is not only impossible to achieve, it would be a disaster, if anybody
> tried to enforce it on everything.
>> It raises the question about what is a "good enough" process.
>> Does it have to always produce the right answer? Does it have
>> to be a repeatable process that is subject to proof?
> The correct answer to a question depends strongly on context.
> Jeopardy is a somewhat artificial example, but it does have
> a context -- the game show and the category of the question.
> A completely repeatable proof is only possible when all the
> axioms, assumptions, and data are fixed and frozen. That
> seldom, if ever, happens in a living system.
>> If a Watson was available on a "per Question" basis and
>> only cost a few cents per answer, how many companies or
>> governments would use it?
> Nobody would want a Jeopardy system, except as a toy.
There are days when I seem to have all the answers but the questions are
> But the
> underlying software has enormous applications when given the
> data (structured and unstructured) of a business or government
> -- and the US gov't is the world's largest publisher.
> IBM didn't pour millions of dollars into developing Watson just
> as a stunt. It is excellent advertising, and I'm sure they have
> plans to reap hardware, software, and consulting sales worth many,
> many times more than they spent on developing it.
It will be interesting to see what applications IBM targets next. The
potential for Homeland Security applications looks very good. (02)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)