[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] IBM Watson's Final Jeopardy error "explanation"

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:01:08 -0500
Message-id: <4D5C1EF4.4050801@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 16/02/2011 1:30 PM, Mike Bennett wrote:
> Agreed, I think there are some very interesting avenues to
> explore for systemic risk analysis.
IBM's video on the Financial industry's possible use of Watson
A bit short on details but gives some ideas about where IBM sees this 
applying.    (01)

The comments section under the video is fun to look at as well.
> Mike
> On 16/02/2011 18:25, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>> On 16/02/2011 12:16 PM, Mike Bennett wrote:
>>> I think the financial industry will stick to semantics rather
>>> than statistics for now, at least for reporting and risk management.
>> Reporting at the authoring end but I suspect that at the receiving end
>> the government and NGOs are going to be very interested in tools that
>> help correlate reported data with other industry news and reports.
>> Risk management is such a broad category and entails so much information
>> that I suspect that a system that can identify and explain the increased
>> risk to a portfolio caused by a flood in southern China and a
>> demonstration in Cairo on the same day will be hard to resist.
>>> Stock picking is another matter, as noted by Ron.
>> The IBM material that was issued around the "Watson/Jeopardy event"
>> specifically mentioned M&A target identification and the feeling
>> expressed by one analyst in an interview, that analysts are inundated
>> with news, reports and trading patterns/events.
>>>     I wonder if
>>> this thing has significantly increased the risk (or scale) of
>>> another Flash Crash type of event?
>> Anything that can get everyone making the same decision at the same time
>> is bound to cause some very interesting "gold rushes" where there are
>> more losers than winners but lots of transactions for the
>> intermediaries. The guys selling logistics in a gold rush almost always
>> made more money than the miners.
>> Ron
>>> Mike
>>> On 16/02/2011 15:37, doug foxvog wrote:
>>>> Question answering by a machine such as Watson is not very useful unless
>>>> the system can explain its answers.  Thus i am disappointed that IBM's
>>>> "explanation" of its error in Final Jeopardy does not explain why it
>>>> chose its answer.
>>>> On Tue, February 15, 2011 21:19, ZENG, MARCIA said:
>>>>> FYI:
>>>>> Watson's Final Jeopardy Blunder In Day 2 Of IBM Challenge was updated:
>>>>> UPDATE: IBM posted this explanation for the mistake on its "Smarter
>>>>> Planet" blog....
>>>> This explanation is little more than "Jeopardy is hard":
>>>> * Category names are tricky and their significance is downgraded.
>>>> * There are cities named Toronto in the US
>>>> * Toronto, Ontario, has an American League baseball team.
>>>> This does not explain why "Toronto" was selected as a response.
>>>> In the IBM ads accompanying the show, they discuss Watson being used
>>>> for diagnosis -- not just for pointing out information that a doctor
>>>> may want to look at for a case.  However, without explanation for
>>>> a diagnosis -- or even for a recommendation for reviewing some paper,
>>>> such use seems quite improper.
>>>> -- doug foxvog
>>>>> On 2/15/11 8:18 PM, "John F. Sowa"<sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>     wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2011 4:24 PM, Jerry Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>> Actually I think the question asked for an "anatomical anomaly",
>>>>>> which could be a body part, like a sixth toe, rather than a disability.
>>>>>> The text Watson used referred to the athlete's "wooden leg".
>>>>> I agree.  It found the anomaly, but it made an error in not explaining
>>>>> that it was an anomaly.  So it should at least get partial credit.
>>>>> On tonight's round, Watson did very well.  But it made a category
>>>>> error for which there was no excuse.
>>>>> The category was US Cities, and all three contestants were given
>>>>> 30 seconds to write their answers and the amount they were willing
>>>>> to bet.
>>>>> Question:  A city whose largest airport is the name of a war hero
>>>>> and whose second largest airport is the name of a WW II battle.
>>>>> Both humans got the answer right -- Chicago -- and they bet
>>>>> the maximum or almost the maximum.
>>>>> That was tricky because Midway Airport happens to be the
>>>>> name of a battle, but it was not named for the battle.
>>>>> But Watson wrote Toronto and bet $947 (which was a small
>>>>> amount, indicating that it wasn't sure).
>>>>> But the category was "US Cities".  It certainly should
>>>>> have checked.
>>>>> John
>>>>>    (02)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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    (03)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>