Author Topic: Now entering the studio... IBM (Read 7701 times)

BrandonFG · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2010, 03:07:29 PM »

[quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242670\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 02:21 PM\']Yes, because Siegel was not playing by the rules. All the other theories people have suggested all were based on Siegel still playing by the rules. If he hadn't broken the rules, he would have won the tournament.[/quote]
And if Dwight Clark had missed The Catch, the Cowboys would've won Super Bowl XVI. See what I did there?

Like many others said, there's no guarantee of any win whatsoever. If anything Final Jeopardy! wagering strategies would've probably changed quite a bit. Of course, we'll never know, because it was 15 years ago, so it's really not much of a debate.

In either scenario (both football and Daily Doubles), no one knows what could've happened if things had switched in the other direction.

Now, as for the IBM, I know they had been trying to do this for a while...it reminds me a bit of Gary Kasparov playing chess against Deep Blue, back in 1997. Deep Blue was developed by...wait for it...IBM.

mbclev · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2010, 03:18:22 PM »

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'242675\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 03:07 PM\']And if Dwight Clark had missed The Catch, the Cowboys would've won Super Bowl XVI. See what I did there?[/quote]

And if Jim Joyce made the right call, Armando Gallaraga would have had a perfect game for the Detroit Tigers.

And if Art Modell would have kept the Cleveland Browns in Cleveland, we might have gone to a Super Bowl or two.

And if Constance McCashin was not fired from "Knots Landing" in 1987, she still might have been in show business.

J.R. · « **Reply #17 on:** June 17, 2010, 03:21:08 PM »

I honestly regret asking.

geno57 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2010, 03:43:48 PM »

Watson is pretty impressive, but I still kicked its virtual ass. There were even a few questions, in which it came up with responses that had absolutely nothing to do with the answer.

(What? "Bookends", "pumice stone", and "West Germany"?! For favorite ice cream flavors of the British?!)

Kevin Prather · « **Reply #19 on:** June 17, 2010, 04:34:27 PM »

[quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242677\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 12:18 PM\']And if Jim Joyce made the right call, Armando Gallaraga would have had a perfect game for the Detroit Tigers.

And if Art Modell would have kept the Cleveland Browns in Cleveland, we might have gone to a Super Bowl or two.

And if Constance McCashin was not fired from "Knots Landing" in 1987, she still might have been in show business.[/quote]
And if your aunt had nuts, she'd be your uncle.

Drop it.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2010, 04:49:48 PM »

Dan who?

[quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'242675\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 03:07 PM\']Now, as for the IBM, I know they had been trying to do this for a while[/quote]
I know stunts like this happen a lot with robotics companies, but I don't recall of any computing companies that do this other than IBM. Maybe they just have enough disposable income to do it.

Mr. Armadillo · « **Reply #21 on:** June 18, 2010, 09:53:41 AM »

[quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242677\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 02:18 PM\'][quote name=\'fostergray82\' post=\'242675\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 03:07 PM\']And if Dwight Clark had missed The Catch, the Cowboys would've won Super Bowl XVI. See what I did there?[/quote]

And if Jim Joyce made the right call, Armando Gallaraga would have had a perfect game for the Detroit Tigers.

And if Art Modell would have kept the Cleveland Browns in Cleveland, we might have gone to a Super Bowl or two.

And if Constance McCashin was not fired from "Knots Landing" in 1987, she still might have been in show business.
[/quote]
At the risk of stating the obvious, there's a difference between the first statement you've made and the other two. But only because there were two outs in the ninth inning.

Another thought...how's Watson going to do on the buzzer?

Jay Temple · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2010, 01:12:18 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'242620\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 01:08 AM\'][quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'242598\' date=\'Jun 16 2010, 07:39 PM\']But will it suss out information like this?
THE YANKEES
He died June 2, 1941, of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.[/quote]
For God's sake, a Google of "yankees amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" yields the correct answer as the first hit. The "he" tells the app it's looking for the person's name. Trust me when I tell you, it can do that.
[/quote]
Touché. Still, it turns the question around: What kind of question is not a gimme for the computer, is reasonably gettable for one of the humans and is also good televison? It would have to be something so trivial that it wasn't even worth noting in a data base. I'm thinking movie lines, but the ones that most favor a human also fail the good TV test.

Quote

In a 2008 film, Tony Stark mistakenly greets this person, "Hey, Hef!"

is too geeky if the category is FAMOUS AMERICANS, but it's a gimme for the computer if the category is FAMOUS LEES. (It might be interesting to place in the category of PUBLISHERS.)

clemon79 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2010, 02:38:32 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'242755\' date=\'Jun 18 2010, 10:12 PM\']Touché. Still, it turns the question around: What kind of question is not a gimme for the computer, is reasonably gettable for one of the humans and is also good televison?[/quote]
I don't know, but I also don't care, and I'll tell you why: if the material isn't bog-standard Jeopardy! fare, no different than three humans would face, then I have officially lost any shred of interest in this experiment.

If I were to go on the show, I would not expect a board of "Hockey," "Video Games," "Television Game Shows Of The 1970s," "European Board Games," "Cooking," and "Pr0n." (Wait, what?) These folks at IBM claim to have developed a machine that can play Jeopardy! and want to prove it. That does not mean Pseudo-Jeopardy!-Written-With-The-Machine-In-Mind. That means Jeopardy!. If the material is jiggered to be "good TV," then it's no longer an interesting experiment and I could give two tin ones how ol' Watson does.

mmb5 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2010, 08:59:43 AM »

On my one try playing Watson, I was struck by something that will be interesting if this comes to fruition. The computer struggles with lower $ value questions that are more dependent on word play or fact 'A' leading to face 'B'. However, it will likely buffer its score on the higher $ value questions, where they tend to be "do you know this obscure fact that is straightforward." Two of the three questions it got over me were simply "person born in x at y" that I didn't know but is easily discernible by a decision engine.

Matt, have they called you yet for the FJ parameters?

--Mike

TLEberle · « **Reply #25 on:** June 20, 2010, 02:58:23 PM »

[quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242670\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 11:21 AM\']Yes, because Siegel was not playing by the rules.[/quote] Sure he was. The rules say that (under particular conditions) failing to preface your response with the requisite question-part means you lose the amount in jeopardy. (See what they did there?) He did not go over and try to strangle Johnny Gilbert with his microphone cords after being called wrong on that DD. THAT would have been not playing by the rules. He did not try to pull out Isaac's button from his desk. That would be against the rules.

Quote

All the other theories people have suggested all were based on Siegel still playing by the rules. If he hadn't broken the rules, he would have won the tournament.

This thing you keep harping on happened on the 32nd clue out of 120. He lost $1,600. He lost more than twice that amount on the following Final Jeopardy.

There were almost 90 intervening clues between the Daily Double Heard Round Your Head and the Final. That is a heaping helping of Chaos Theory/Schrodinger's Cat/Butterflies Flapping Their Wings in Chicago Means Someone Else Wins On Jeopardy.

He didn't bet his entire wad on day two (not that it would have made a lick of difference, he couldn't have caught Ryan anyway if he had).

But that won't keep you from hanging onto your tinfoil hat, will it.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #26 on:** June 20, 2010, 10:43:49 PM »

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'242792\' date=\'Jun 20 2010, 02:58 PM\']Schrodinger's Cat[/quote]
Remember to have it spayed and neutered

gromit82 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 21, 2010, 02:28:48 AM »

[quote name=\'Jay Temple\' post=\'242755\' date=\'Jun 19 2010, 12:12 AM\']Still, it turns the question around: What kind of question is not a gimme for the computer, is reasonably gettable for one of the humans and is also good televison?[/quote]

Questions that incorporate puns and wordplay in the clues?

Fedya · « **Reply #28 on:** June 21, 2010, 01:02:37 PM »

Frankly I get irritated by the constant wordplay in the bottom-row clues.

The only advantage to having a computer play is that perhaps the writers will stop having clues that simply want to you know who was president in the given year. Especially when those clues show up in the bottom boxes.

clemon79 · « **Reply #29 on:** June 21, 2010, 01:35:00 PM »

[quote name=\'Fedya\' post=\'242805\' date=\'Jun 21 2010, 10:02 AM\']The only advantage to having a computer play is that perhaps the writers will stop having clues that simply want to you know who was president in the given year. Especially when those clues show up in the bottom boxes.[/quote]
Again, if it affects the writing of the show at all, it's a worthless exercise.

(Now, if you think the writing of the show needs to change for its own sake, and you are rooting for this exercise to be rendered worthless as a means to that end, more power to you.)