Man vs. Machine: IBM against Humanness
February 13, 2011
CNN interviewed author Stephen Baker, for a look Behind-the-scenes with IBM’s ‘Jeopardy!’ Computer, Watson. Receiving attention from computer experts and non-experts alike, IBM will put artificial intelligence to the test on the iconic Jeopardy stage.
“The “Watson” IBM computer, which has been in development for four years, will be matched against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, two of Jeopardy’s champions. The episodes are scheduled to be aired February 14 to 16.”
As viewers tune in to see how Watson fares against America’s brightest, some will be reminded of the game show scandals of the 1950’s. In “The $64,000 Question,” an IBM sorting machine gave the illusion that questions were randomly selected, but behind the scenes some contestants were being favored with questions chosen to compliment their expertise. The quiz show “Twenty-One” was also rigged; all aspects were choreographed to improve ratings and please sponsors.
With these scandals in the cultural memory, many will remain suspicious if Watson bests his foes, wanting proof that it was indeed a fair fight. One thing is certain: It IS television and everything on TV is real, just like reality programming.
Emily Rae Aldridge, February 13, 2011
Freebie
Comments
5 Responses to “Man vs. Machine: IBM against Humanness”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
So you Ms. Aldridge, along with Mr. Arnold, believe that IBM’s claim is a fraudulent one? If so, where is the evidence to qualify this belief? Citing scandals centering on television programs from sixty years ago hardly seems relevant, let alone capable of addressing the issue at hand. The technology in question there functioned as designed, yet was misused by a human operator. As we continue to progress technologically, there will be many moments where the only feasible way to introduce said advances to the masses will be in this and similar formats. For “non-experts” who’s only understanding of science at this level is generally delivered through various sources of entertainment(namely literature and films), a concept such as artificial intelligence and its applications appears novel, if not fantastical at first. Human resistance to their mechanized counter parts is well documented and remains a point of contention. The urge to challenge the efficiency of robots(thanks Mr. Capek) has almost always ended with flesh acquiescing to metal. Even you should remember the fate of John Henry.
I am dangerously close to digressing.
Mr. Arnold seems convinced that this is a PR stunt orchestrated by IBM, that in fact the AI technology does not exist. An assertion you have now parroted. What purpose would an exploit of this style serve? Would it not be ruinous for a company to lie about possessing such grand science? Are either you aware of the vast advances in robotics(thanks Mr. Asimov) and AI occurring in Asia? Hell, an American successfully constructed a mechanism in the form of deceased writer Philip K. Dick that can field questions about the author’s life close to a decade ago. I would suggest you do a bit more research before loosing your tongues, or in this case your fingers, on the world.
[…] Man vs. Machine: IBM against Humanness (arnoldit.com) […]
Lucas Diamond,
Thanks for your viewpoint. We have our opinion as well. TV quiz shows have an interesting history. Anyone involved in television production is familiar with the methods of creating a “show”; that is, entertainment. The wonderful aspect of a Web log with an editorial policy (http://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/about) is that when we are wrong (which happens) we can change our view point. Until then, an opinion is an opinion. And the TV game show business is the TV game show business. Great technology can be great public relations. Great TV can be a “show” that is wildly entertaining. Reality TV is about ratings. Live TV is exciting. TV producers often prefer to shoot and edit. And those 21 and $64,000 Question programs were ultimately about getting eyeballs. Have TV game shows changed much? I know most are taped and then edited in post production. An objective test across multiple research groups is one thing, and a prime time TV show is quite another.
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2011
Mr. Arnold,
While you retort was informative, I feel it fails to address the issue. I will say it was surprising to learn you possess such an intimate understanding of television production when in a posting on this very site you profess ignorance regarding the existence of Jeopardy!. I understood(without reading your disclaimer) that Ms. Aldridge was summarizing information posted elsewhere, infusing opinion(namely yours) into the brew as well. What I fail to grasp is how and why you are now pushing the conversation towards the ethics of television production. What motivated me to comment initially was the view that Watson is not real. I understand that in your mind IBM is working with the producers of a game show to boost its ratings as well as the image of the company. Are said game shows ratings and the prevailing opinion of IBM low enough to warrant such a rouse? I will again ask, would it not be detrimental for IBM to lie?
As I see it my comment was delivered in hopes of reading reasons why you feel IBM would falsely claim they possess tech of this caliber, should you choose to respond. You have replied and still I wait for evidence. Everyone has an opinion, and in this our modern world they can force them into the collective consciousness using any number of methods. I will foolishly continue to hope that those who do make their thoughts public can defend them when challenged. Thank you for the prompt response nonetheless.
Cheers,
Lucas Diamond February 14, 2011
absolutely fascinating show