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