Watson Def. Human

by rrusczyk, Feb 17, 2011, 2:18 PM

All this ruminating over Watson whipping us mere humans reminds me of this excellent Economist article about Deep Blue running down Kasparov (I went to one of those matches, which was surprisingly entertaining, despite my not being much of a chess player). In wondering what it would mean for Deep Blue to beat Kasparov, the Economist writes:
Economist wrote:
If Mr Kasparov does win, despite the odds, it may give his audience a warm feeling. But, in truth, if Deep Blue were to beat him it would not really matter one jot. It would not show that Deep Blue was cleverer than any human alive. It would merely confirm something that has been known for a long time: that chess is trivial.

And now Watson's victory confirms something that has been known for even longer: trivia is trivial.
This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by rrusczyk, Feb 17, 2011, 2:19 PM

Comment

8 Comments

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Woah. 2 entries in one morning. Neat!

The Watson match was pretty exciting, especially because it stayed with the humans, but then started beating them. I like how it was required to push the button with a robotic hand, as to lesson the advantage.

by bluecarneal, Feb 17, 2011, 2:23 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Your argument makes me nervous, asymptotically. We can continue to use the forefront of computer intelligence as a lower bound on what is trivial, but we're already starting to get to the point where that backfires.

Sure, the "best move" in a chess match or the ability to decipher a pun correctly can be dismissed from the microscopic level, but do that painting thing from your post yesterday and it gets a little fuzzier. Under the same scrutiny normal people playing chess or Jeopardy seem even more simplistic.

I don't want to think that Kasparov's feints and deceptions were a sign of brilliance. All he did was, when he saw he was outmatched, switch to a different subroutine. You could move the target again and say that the computer wasn't able to keep up, but that won't buy humanity many more years of dominance.

Pointing out subtle things we did better just opens another door to our obsolescence.

by copeland, Feb 18, 2011, 12:26 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think our days are numbered, though I think that day is much farther off than singularitarians (however it is spelled) think. I just think that "chess" and "amassing facts" are not highly correlated to the cognitive skills that still separate us from the machines. But yeah, the time will come when it will be much much harder to defend the idea that there's really a ghost in the machine typing this sentence. But I didn't need Watson and Deep Blue to make me believe that. (I basically didn't buy a lot of the stuff in the chess article about what separates us from them -- I mostly bought the "chess is trivial" line.)

by rrusczyk, Feb 18, 2011, 2:30 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
For me it merely means that our days as pure flesh and blood creatures are numbered and that we should stop cling to all niceties of having pure animal physiology from the need to breath, eat, and sleep to the pleasure of death. There is no need for the human-machine confrontation (which, by the way, assumes the human attitudes toward the world on the part of thinking machines, the assumption that shows nothing but the usual human lack of imagination). Of course, if we rely upon the natural selection to make us develop faster than the computers, we'll lose quite soon but I see nothing wrong with either playing with genes, or making us half-silicon in principle. The only real obstacle is that we do not trust each other to the extent of paranoia.

by fedja, Feb 18, 2011, 5:48 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
I pretty much agree with that, though I think the number of those days is a lot larger than most futurists claim. I believe the problems in achieving the steps that would make these transformational changes are getting harder faster than we're getting smarter.

by rrusczyk, Feb 18, 2011, 2:12 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Perhaps it just proves that the skills required for humans to be extremely proficient at chess, etc. are more easily acquired by machines. However, this does bode strangely for our future.

by QuantumTiger, Feb 19, 2011, 2:54 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Chess trivial? My life just ended.

by BOGTRO, Apr 2, 2011, 12:57 AM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
Hm... they're similar that they're both revolutions in technology and defeated humans. But chess is completely different from quiz shows- I lost to a computer that was rated 800 the other day.

by anonymous0, Apr 21, 2011, 6:54 PM

Come Search With Me

avatar

rrusczyk
Archives
+ December 2011
+ September 2011
+ August 2011
+ March 2011
+ June 2006
AMC
Tags
About Owner
  • Posts: 16194
  • Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Blog Stats
  • Blog created: Jan 28, 2005
  • Total entries: 940
  • Total visits: 3312595
  • Total comments: 3882
Search Blog