The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: irwinsjournal.com on June 16, 2010, 03:58:05 PM
-
Noted on the New York Times website as a "Magazine Preview" article. I have not finished reading it so I'll just pass along the link without any comment...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20Computer-t.html (http://\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20Computer-t.html\")
For the last three years, I.B.M. scientists have been developing what they expect will be the world’s most advanced “question answering” machine, able to understand a question posed in everyday human elocution — “natural language,” as computer scientists call it — and respond with a precise, factual answer...
With Watson, I.B.M. claims it has cracked the problem — and aims to prove as much on national TV. The producers of “Jeopardy!” have agreed to pit Watson against some of the game’s best former players as early as this fall.
-
IBM computer
Ken Jennings
Brad Rutter
I am calling it now.
-
MALCOLM as front-end. No exceptions.
-
But will it suss out information like this?
THE YANKEES
He died June 2, 1941, of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
And in a non-lock game, how will it wager?
-
[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.
-
Will it remember to phrase Double Jeopardy and Daily Double responses in the form of a question (unlike a certain person in 1995 I have mentioned elsewhere so many times)?
-
[quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242622\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 01:19 AM\'](unlike a certain person in 1995 I have mentioned elsewhere so many times)?[/quote]
Pardon my ignorance, but who exactly are you referring to?
-
[quote name=\'Lirodon\' post=\'242589\' date=\'Jun 16 2010, 08:48 PM\']IBM computer
Ken Jennings
Brad Rutter
I am calling it now.[/quote]
Now there's the ULTIMATE ToC final. Might as well be a week-long event. Whoever earns the most $ after 5 ganes win the $2M prize. If IBM wins, its creators will share the prize I assume. 2nd place is $250K & 3rd place is $100K.
-
[quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'242623\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 12:10 AM\'][quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242622\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 01:19 AM\'](unlike a certain person in 1995 I have mentioned elsewhere so many times)?[/quote]Pardon my ignorance, but who exactly are you referring to?[/quote]This is just one guy's brain addled guess, but I think he's talking about Lionel Goldbart. He was doing decently in the Tournament of Champions, happened upon a late Daily Double in the second round, bet enough of his wad that when he forgot to preface his question with "What is...?" that it knocked him plumb out of the running.
-
This whole thing is just way too freaky. The thing I worry about is if it proves to be too difficuly to beat.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'242648\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 10:45 AM\'][quote name=\'J.R.\' post=\'242623\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 12:10 AM\'][quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242622\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 01:19 AM\'](unlike a certain person in 1995 I have mentioned elsewhere so many times)?[/quote]Pardon my ignorance, but who exactly are you referring to?[/quote]This is just one guy's brain addled guess, but I think he's talking about Lionel Goldbart. He was doing decently in the Tournament of Champions, happened upon a late Daily Double in the second round, bet enough of his wad that when he forgot to preface his question with "What is...?" that it knocked him plumb out of the running.
[/quote]
No, I'm talking about David Siegel, who forgot to phrase a Daily Double response in the form of a question in game one of the 1995 J! Tournament of Champions finals. The important thing to remember here is that he wagered $800 on that Daily Double, and he lost to eventual tournament champion Ryan Holznagel by $1301, less than the $1600 turnaround that would have occurred had Siegel phrased that particular response properly. Therefore, it has been my belief ever since that Siegel's mistake cost him the tournament, and every time I mention it on the J! message board, so many people get angry at me and offer theories that I do not think are right, because I have thought about it so many times, and every time I come to the same conclusion, that Siegel's mistake cost him the tournament.
-
[quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242667\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 09:58 AM\']Therefore, it has been my belief ever since that Siegel's mistake cost him the tournament, and every time I mention it on the J! message board, so many people get angry at me and offer theories that I do not think are right,[/quote]
You mean, like the obvious one, where the wagering for FJ (EDIT: AND AN ENTIRE SECOND GAME) changes because the scores are different?
Yeah, can't imagine why people would get annoyed with you about that.
EDIT: Jesus, I just found the original thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6976&view=findpost&p=74520\") where you started beating that drum. You're STILL hanging on to a Game One wager making the difference in the tournament strictly on a mathematical basis?
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'242668\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 01:19 PM\'][quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242667\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 09:58 AM\']Therefore, it has been my belief ever since that Siegel's mistake cost him the tournament, and every time I mention it on the J! message board, so many people get angry at me and offer theories that I do not think are right,[/quote]
You mean, like the obvious one, where the wagering for FJ (EDIT: AND AN ENTIRE SECOND GAME) changes because the scores are different?
Yeah, can't imagine why people would get annoyed with you about that.
EDIT: Jesus, I just found the original thread (http://\"http://gameshow.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6976&view=findpost&p=74520\") where you started beating that drum. You're STILL hanging on to a Game One wager making the difference in the tournament strictly on a mathematical basis?
[/quote]
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 name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242670\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 11:21 AM\']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]
What in the purple hell are you talking about?
(I found another special one, didn't I.)
-
[quote name=\'mbclev\' post=\'242667\' date=\'Jun 17 2010, 11:58 AM\']No, I'm talking about David Siegel, who forgot to phrase a Daily Double response in the form of a question in game one of the 1995 J! Tournament of Champions finals. The important thing to remember here is that he wagered $800 on that Daily Double, and he lost to eventual tournament champion Ryan Holznagel by $1301, less than the $1600 turnaround that would have occurred had Siegel phrased that particular response properly. Therefore, it has been my belief ever since that Siegel's mistake cost him the tournament, and every time I mention it on the J! message board, so many people get angry at me and offer theories that I do not think are right, because I have thought about it so many times, and every time I come to the same conclusion, that Siegel's mistake cost him the tournament.[/quote]
Anyhoo, in other news.....
You can play against Watson here. (http://\"http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Finteractive%2F2010%2F06%2F16%2Fmagazine%2Fwatson-trivia-game.html%3Fref%3Dmagazine&h=f05dbA2eP67w-obAGQ-1ThxP1cg\") It's just one Jeopardy! board, no Daily Doubles, and you get first crack at all the answers. After each clue is finished, the game will show what Watson was "thinking" when answering. I'm assuming that if his percentile of confidence passes the line, he answers the question.
-
[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 (http://\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)\"), back in 1997. Deep Blue was developed by...wait for it...IBM.
-
[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.
-
I honestly regret asking.
-
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?!)
-
[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.
-
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.
-
[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?
-
[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.
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.)
-
[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.
-
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
-
[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.
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.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'242792\' date=\'Jun 20 2010, 02:58 PM\']Schrodinger's Cat[/quote]
Remember to have it spayed and neutered
-
[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?
-
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.
-
[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.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'242806\' date=\'Jun 21 2010, 10:35 AM\'](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.)[/quote]There's certainly a line to walk. The $1,000 clue shouldn't be cheaped up to be as hard as a $600 when you add in the word play and whatnot, but you're also doing a TV show, and if the $1,000 clues are not only the most difficult but so hard to comprehend that the viewers tune out, that doesn't work either.
If they're going to do this, it should be under lab conditions, but I would be interested to see if the game changes as a result.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'242819\' date=\'Jun 21 2010, 09:38 PM\']If they're going to do this, it should be under lab conditions[/quote]
I can't think of any way for it not to be, other than maybe a stunt week in October similar to BtS or normal celeb weeks.
-
I meant to agree with Chris: the questions shouldn't be changed to help or hinder the computer program. Whether it plays against Ken Jennings and Frank Spangenberg or the next two players on the contestant roll is up to the show.