= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RolfAndreassen comments on IBM's "Watson" program to compete against "Jeopardy" champions tonight - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (26)
It seems to me that the media, and even LessWrong, are being rather overly impressed by, in effect, heuristic database lookups. A trivia quiz is surely a textbook example of playing to the strengths of the computer; and even so the humans had at least got a fighting chance. Can someone convince me that this is more impressive than it looks? Isn't it just a case of building a big-enough database with associative keyword nets, which was already well underway in the eighties and turned out to be a dead end?
Recall why these seemed to be a dead end. Two major reasons were (as I understand it) that the databases had to be massive to be useful and that they didn't have easy ways of adding facts and relations without human intervention. Watson helps show directly that the first is no longer as big a deal, and will be less of a problem as computers improve. The second is also less of a problem now since Watson can take large datadumps and then develop associations more or less itself (at least that's how it was explained to me.).