IBM's toy
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/watson-does-well-and-not/
I continue to be nonplussed by the whole man versus machine issue here. Throughout time, humans have been able to build specialized machines that can do specialized tasks better/faster than a human could. I am impressed with the amount of data and algorithms that IBM has managed to cram into this device*. But then I've been told it weighs a few tons, too. Given enough time and money, computers can do impressive things - I'm happy with that, I just don't see it as a larger or new story. And that gets me to my central point - the whole thing is comparing apples to oranges. A large part of Jeopardy is hitting the buzzer first. The machine seems to have the humans beat in this area. BFD. I suspect electronic signals were beating human hand coordination before most of this current crop of computer developers were born. I'm reasonably sure that the humans could have answered the questions as accurately as the machine, (they've been quite successful in the past), but they couldn't compete against "button pushing". Sorry, but that doesn't impress me. I just don't feel humanity is somehow lessened by being tool users - and that's all this is to me.
*Once again, I detest the computer bewing humanized. They give it a cute name. Even the drone writing this article refers to the machine as "he". Wrong. It is nothing more than an It. Do these people also name their toasters and vacuum cleaners? I (barely) understand folks naming their cars/boats/aircraft. Perhaps it's because frequently those conveyances were expensive and dear, even life sustaining, and thus worthy of a type of false affection or superstition. (I suspect cars were named because they replaced horses, who were also named). It's just a machine, people need to relax about that.
I continue to be nonplussed by the whole man versus machine issue here. Throughout time, humans have been able to build specialized machines that can do specialized tasks better/faster than a human could. I am impressed with the amount of data and algorithms that IBM has managed to cram into this device*. But then I've been told it weighs a few tons, too. Given enough time and money, computers can do impressive things - I'm happy with that, I just don't see it as a larger or new story. And that gets me to my central point - the whole thing is comparing apples to oranges. A large part of Jeopardy is hitting the buzzer first. The machine seems to have the humans beat in this area. BFD. I suspect electronic signals were beating human hand coordination before most of this current crop of computer developers were born. I'm reasonably sure that the humans could have answered the questions as accurately as the machine, (they've been quite successful in the past), but they couldn't compete against "button pushing". Sorry, but that doesn't impress me. I just don't feel humanity is somehow lessened by being tool users - and that's all this is to me.
*Once again, I detest the computer bewing humanized. They give it a cute name. Even the drone writing this article refers to the machine as "he". Wrong. It is nothing more than an It. Do these people also name their toasters and vacuum cleaners? I (barely) understand folks naming their cars/boats/aircraft. Perhaps it's because frequently those conveyances were expensive and dear, even life sustaining, and thus worthy of a type of false affection or superstition. (I suspect cars were named because they replaced horses, who were also named). It's just a machine, people need to relax about that.
posted by mendip at
12:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home