> I
> wonder what lessons Watson's developers will derived from those blunders.
>
> In any case, very impressive!!! Congratulations to the whole Watson team.
> Looking forward to more.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
>
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
ontolog-forum-
>>
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 12:46 PM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] IBM Watson on Jeopardy
>>
>> On Mon, February 14, 2011 12:21, Ron Wheeler said:
>> > So we are now worried that a computer is going to be better than
>> humans
>> > at forecasting how a question will be finished?
>>
>> > I will be completely impressed (blown away actually) if Watson has
>> the
>> > answer before the question is asked and is bouncing up and down
>> > screaming "I know what you want to know and I already have the
>> answer".
>>
>> The question (actually in Jeopardy terms the "answer") is presented in
>> text form, which is then read allowed. Not only do humans often have
>> the
>> answer long before the reading is finished, Watson also often has had
>> its answer finished (in trial runs) well before the reading is complete.
>> Both the humans and Watson must wait until the right time before
>> signaling that they have an answer.
>>
>> > Much higher expectations than I originally had!
>>
>> I'll be interested in what questions it does not answer. I don't think
>> we'll have any way of knowing if it "clicks" late.
>>
>> > Now we have the ultimate computer. It knows the questions and the
>> > answers - we just have to sit back and watch the world roll on.
>>
>> Hah!
>>
>> > Ron
>> >
>> > On 14/02/2011 11:42 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> >> One key advantage that Watson has is timing. One can not push the
>> >> button
>> >> to signal a question as soon as one guesses it, but must wait until
>> the
>> >> spoken answer is finished. If one pushes the button too soon, there
>> is
>> >> a
>> >> minimum delay before one can push the button again. A contestant
>> can
>> >> not
>> >> judge the timing to the microsecond, but Watson probably can. This
>> >> seems
>> >> to be a great advantage for the computer. Perhaps Watson should
>> signal
>> >> when it has found a question (well before the spoken answer has
>> finished
>> >> being read), and then resignal at the delay time to which a human
>> >> contestant is limited.
>> >>
>> >> One often sees that several contestants on Jeopardy are pushing the
>> >> button,
>> >> but one wins on timing. How's that going to work out on Jeopardy?
>> >>
>> >> -- doug f
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, February 13, 2011 17:25, Patrick Durusau said:
>> >>> Jack,
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2/13/2011 5:00 PM, Jack Park wrote:
>> >>>> Returning to the original thread, I've noticed that the Web is
>> crowing
>> >>>> over the fact that Watson is running under Linux.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Do you know if Linux was chosen so the Watson team would not have
>> to
>> >>> pay
>> >>> licensing fees to the AS/400 division? ;-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Minsky did not sound bitter to me.
>> >>>
>> >>> Disappointed that the news media has bestowed the AI crown on a
>> system
>> >>> with no more understanding of Jeopardy than an orrery has of
>> >>> astrophysics, but not bitter.
>> >>>
>> >>> Disappointment is understandable when a lifetime of work is made
>> into a
>> >>> carnival sideshow type event. Jeopardy no more measures
>> intelligence
>> >>> than a standard IQ test. Both measure being good at the skills
>> required
>> >>> by each one. Nothing more, nothing less.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hope you are having a great weekend!
>> >>>
>> >>> Patrick
>> >>>> Jack
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Peter Yim<
peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> Thank you, Bill.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I concur with Bill Andersen that this spun-off conversation about
>> the
>> >>>>> military or politicians should be taken elsewhere. So, please.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The subject is "iBM Watson on Jeopardy" and that's a fascinating
>> >>>>> topic
>> >>>>> ... continue on that by all means.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks& regards. =ppy
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Peter Yim
>> >>>>> Co-convener, ONTOLOG
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2011 7:56 AM, "Bill Andersen"<
andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Ahem... Anyone in this conversation been in the military or have
>> >>>>>> credentials in military history? One good reason I'd rather not
>> see
>> >>>>>> this conversation on ontolog. Another is that it's way out of
>> scope
>> >>>>>> and bordering on political - and those of you who know me know
>> you
>> >>>>>> don't want me to go there.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So please take this somewhere else (but include me - I'd love to
>> get
>> >>>>>> into this one)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Bill
>> >>>>>> On Feb 13, 2011, at 8:18, "John F. Sowa"<
sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Vincent and Rich,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> JFS
>> >>>>>>>>> That is also true of people. As the saying goes, generals are
>> >>>>>>>>> very good at fighting the last war, but not the current one.
>> >>>>>>> VW
>> >>>>>>>> If that saying were true, there'd be ZERO
>> >>>>>>>> national security - for any country.
>> >>>>>>> You need to study military history. The leaders who win
>> >>>>>>> are the ones who can innovate to meet changing conditions.
>> >>>>>>> But most leaders in every field aren't innovative -- they
>> >>>>>>> just repeat what worked last time.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> RC
>> >>>>>>>> we are buying a bunch of F-35's to fight international
>> terrorism.
>> >>>>>>> That is comparable to the French building the Maginot line
>> after WW
>> >>>>>>> I.
>> >>>>>>> It's a hugely expensive waste of money on systems that would
>> have
>> >>>>>>> been useful in the past.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> VW
>> >>>>>>>> I'll just repeat one of my earlier statements: "There are lots
>> >>>>>>>> of sayings among us which should be relegated to the past -
>> >>>>>>>> and left there - where they belong..."
>> >>>>>>> You can repeat that, but it won't make it true.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> A better guideline is one of my favorite quotations from
>> >>>>>>> Alfred North Whitehead:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> "Every great truth is only half true."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That means that every proverb, principle, or ideology has
>> >>>>>>> to be re-evaluated in terms of current conditions in order
>> >>>>>>> to determine which half is appropriate.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The most dangerous offenders are politicians who repeat
>> >>>>>>> half truths until they make the voters believe them.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> John