What did you find most interesting about seeing Watson being designed?
What I found most interesting was how they operate in a laboratory created entirely around statistics. Every clue Watson answers creates an enormous spreadsheet, and each of the variables can be tweaked, tested, refined, and then tested again in a blind batch, to see whether the adjustment affects a broader sampling. I imagine it's a bit like the continuous process improvement made famous by Japanese auto manufacturers. But at least they're building cars. Watson, it could be argued, really produces nothing but statistics. Its Jeopardy responses are a byproduct.
As technology like this becomes more common, what will happen to the way that we think?
We're already looking more and more to our networks for answers. (Just watch anyone with an iPhone.) This trend is bound to accelerate as more sophisticated technologies, like Watson's, become available. As this happens, I think we'll start to view general knowledge as a lower commodity. To succeed in the knowledge economy, people increasingly will have to put knowledge to work, coming up with original ideas. Those who fail in this are likely to be displaced by machines.
But this isn't just an economic issue. There's also the question of what we need and want in our heads to have happier and more fulfilling lives. After all, a person who outsources knowledge-work to the network might end up struggling to carry on interesting conversations, or to make friends. We shouldn't forget that Watson and its ilk are just powerful tools--and that we're the ones with brains.
Are you a scientist? Have you recently read a peer-reviewed paper that you want to write about? Then contact Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe, where he edits the Sunday Ideas section. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentPerhaps IBM and other technological manufacturers should employ Watson within their own technical support network to play 20 questions with customers suffering problems with their equipment! At least that might be more entertaining than current voice response systems. I wonder how soon IBM can implement - cost won't be an issue, will it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this stuff make me think the revelation Will Smith has in the movie "I, Robot", where he gets , after a robot rescued him instead of a child in a car accident, why statistically correct decision does not make sense in human terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can see the headlines now: No Holmes Shall Be Without A Watson.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaurie Siegel
New York City
I think IBM Watson needs a permanent home in Congress, for them to use it of course. With speech recognition ever the worst case tech luddite can have success and this time connect to the internet if possible for some SQL queries needed for creating laws. If we don't do this and Wall Street buys the technology, we will never have a shot at any auditing and keeping pace. The SEC might as die and go away if Wall Street gets this first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI actually blogged it a couple weeks ago before I read today about Watson's cameo at Congress:)
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2011/03/ibm-watson-did-get-chance-to-go-to.html
I am not sure how I feel about this. Every advance in technology seems to lead to a dumber and dumber general population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure how I feel about this. Every advance in technology seems to lead to a dumber and dumber general population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Watson is version-ed ever upward, I sense profound changes in the way humans solve problems. Watson may quickly categorize the human questioner so as to statistically select the best presentation of the answer for that specific questioner. A different answer presentation for every questioner so to speak. So a kid could learn math from Watson while her chemist Dad could design a new fuel with ultra-efficiency because Watson would give them both the most statistically efficient answers they each need to pursue their goal. Hey, a guy can dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To win, Watson had to navigate [...] all the things, in short, that make language delightful and deeply machine unfriendly"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope, "Watson" did not have to do that.
AI need be designed to emulate 'The chip in the brain' - go to that title in the FQXi essay contest for a full account.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo far, Watson is nothing more than a "white elephant."At a price tag of 1.5 billion each (no added profits from IBM); it would take at least 10,000 Watson units to merely serve 10,000 user per minute. That means, some needs to invest 15 trillion dollars to make Watson a minimal Internet search engine. Then, there is the issue that Watson handles only English and can only handle questions that imply a minimum number of answers (one, maybe two?). Finally, not all shiny things are gold, therefore, algorithmic manipulation of data to resemble the output of an intelligent entity is not intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaurie, nice pun!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter watching a rerun of the match I came up with questions and opinions that don't match the outcome I was supposed to believe. To wit:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat scientific method was used to declare "Watson" the winner?
Why was "Watson" able to buzz in when the human contestants tried but couldn't?
Where did the questions come from?
Was there an intentional slant as to what information the computer should contain?
Personally I see a "fix" like the $64,000 Question of yesteryear. IBM spent billions to try and portray a computer able to compete with a human. An attempt to make the public believe by fraud.
I tried to e-mail IBM to no avail.