Man vs Computer - The score is tied!

[angelfj1]

Man and machine tied in 'Jeopardy' game-show match
$1.5 million at stake as computer takes on two human champs on TV.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41582125/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/

 

[JPSmit]

All very interesting, though after a while you start to feel like the Matrix isn't far off. Of course, having been defeated by the electrical system of a 1976 Midget on many occasions, my day passed long ago. :frown:

 

[Steve_S]

I know who won. Not telling though.

... watch and see.

 

[Basil]

I know who won. Not telling though.

... watch and see.

Did you have a front row seat?

 

[SilentUnicorn]

I know who won. Not telling though.

... watch and see.

Did you have a front row seat?

You all dont mean that JP lost to the electrical system?

m

 

[Guest]

I know who won. Not telling though.

... watch and see.

Did you have a front row seat?

You all dont mean that JP lost to the electrical system?

m

That aint nuthin. My spellin' shoos I lost to "The Electric Company" as a child.

 

[JPSmit]

I know who won. Not telling though.

... watch and see.

Did you have a front row seat?

You all dont mean that JP lost to the electrical system?

m

no it doesn't and yes i did.

But I'm sure our new robot overlords will look with favour upon those who took such care of their mechanical British ancestors.

 

[Steve_S]

Did you have a front row seat?

You could say that, yes. Whenever you saw Watson on camera, that was me at work.

 

[DrEntropy]

We're Jeopardy addicts here.

That was an interesting experiment but highly one-sided, IMO.

 

[Steve_S]

There's a reason why the computer won, and it isn't because it knew more of the answers than the human competitors. But in the end, it did win and that was the point.

 

[Basil]

Did you have a front row seat?

You could say that, yes. Whenever you saw Watson on camera, that was me at work.

I'll bet your were passing Watson the answers! :banana:

 

[Basil]

There's a reason why the computer won, and it isn't because it knew more of the answers than the human competitors. But in the end, it did win and that was the point.

Seems to me its just a matter of have a huge data-base.

 

[Steve_S]

Sure, Watson had more information available than the humans did in their own brains, but the challenge is to interpret that information along with the vocal questions and figure out how to apply it. The info is meaningless on its own! Problem is, even if the computer gets half of the answers wrong it will still win if no one else gets to ring in! So there lies the biggest reason, in my opinion, why the computer won. An electronic signal is infinitely faster than the reaction time of the human eye, brain and finger added together.

 

[Basil]

Sure, Watson had more information available than the humans did in their own brains, but the challenge is to interpret that information along with the vocal questions and figure out how to apply it. The info is meaningless on its own! Problem is, even if the computer gets half of the answers wrong it will still win if no one else gets to ring in! So there lies the biggest reason, in my opinion, why the computer won. An electronic signal is infinitely faster than the reaction time of the human eye, brain and finger added together.

To make it fair, they could have built in a random human-like delay in Watson's buzzer response time.

 

[DrEntropy]

Problem is, even if the computer gets half of the answers wrong it will still win if no one else gets to ring in! So there lies the biggest reason, in my opinion, why the computer won. <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">An electronic signal is infinitely faster than the reaction time of the human eye, brain and finger added together.</span></span>

<span style="font-style: italic">THAT</span> is what I meant by one-sided.

 

[JPSmit]

Sure, Watson had more information available than the humans did in their own brains, but the challenge is to interpret that information along with the vocal questions and figure out how to apply it. The info is meaningless on its own! Problem is, even if the computer gets half of the answers wrong it will still win if no one else gets to ring in! So there lies the biggest reason, in my opinion, why the computer won. An electronic signal is infinitely faster than the reaction time of the human eye, brain and finger added together.

To make it fair, they could have built in a random human-like delay in Watson's buzzer response time.

Or just use Lucas wiring for the switch.

 

[Basil]

Or just use Lucas wiring for the switch.

Even better! (But that might give the human too much of an advantage! )

 

[AEW]

good laugh about the Lucas wiring.... seriously I always thought the show DID adjust the buttons of the three players by making the connection a digital response. so even when you are the first to hit the button if the duty cycle is '0' you are passed over. it explains why the contestants rapidly hammer the button. (IMO)

 

[Steve_S]

I was working on the show again today and was talking to someone about it. He mentioned that in trying to beat the computer's response time, the human players locked themselves out 18 times by ringing in a split second early. That's 15% of the questions, which means a huge advantage to the computer. The only way to truly make it as even as possible, in my opinion, is to assign a human to the computer's signal button. The way it normally works is that a set of lights come on when you're allowed to ring in. For the computer, there could be a separate light for the computer's human helper to use, telling him when the computer wants to ring in. At that point he presses the button.

 

[Basil]

That could work.