Stephen Baker

Stephen Baker

Posted: February 16, 2011 09:08 AM

IBM's Jeopardy machine was so dominant -- until the very end of the second day of the man-machine match, when it made what looked like a clueless mistake. It suggested Toronto as a "US city." And now instead of bowing before the new model of machine intelligence, masses of Jeopardy fans are ridiculing it on Twitter and elsewhere.

Just what IBM hoped to avoid. As I write in Final Jeopardy, the team building the machine actually had a group--the so-called "dumb team" -- to try to steer Watson away from embarrassing gaffes. These were most likely to occur in Final Jeopardy, where the clues are more complex and Watson is compelled to respond, even if it has low confidence, as it did in Toronto. The team even considered programming to the computer to throw up its hands when puzzled, and just say it didn't know. But instead, they let it guess.

Read the comments on Twitter, and there's lots of misunderstanding about how Watson works. Watson doesn't have lists of things it "knows." Every clue is a research project, and it comes up with the statistically most promising answer.

Here's a summary of the issues:

1) Watson can never be sure of anything. Is it possible that the old rock star Alice Cooper is a man? If Watson finds enough evidence, it will bet on it--even though the name "Alice" is sure to create a lot of doubt. This flexibility in its thinking can save Watson from gaffes--but also lead to a few.

2) Category titles cannot be trusted. I blogged about this earlier, in a post How Watson Thinks. It has learned through exhaustive statistical analysis that many clues do not jibe with categories. A category about US novelists, for example, can ask about J.D. Salinger's masterpiece. Catcher in the Rye is a novel, not a novelist! These things happen time and again, and Watson notices. So it pays scant attention to the categories.

3) If this had been a normal Jeopardy clue, Watson would not have buzzed. It had only 14% confidence in Toronto (whose Pearson airport is named for a man who was active in World War One), and 11% in Chicago. Watson simply did not come up with the answer, and Toronto was its guess. (It communicated its low confidence by adding a lot of question marks.)

Even so, how could it guess that Toronto was an American city? Here we come to the weakness of statistical analysis. While searching through data, it notices that the United States is often called America. Toronto is a North American city. Its baseball team, the Blue Jays, plays in the American League. If Watson happened to study the itinerary of my The Numerati book tour, it included a host of American cities, from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, to Seattle, San Francisco, and Toronto. In documents like that, people often don't stop to note for inquiring computers that Toronto actually shouldn't be placed in the group.

Long story short: Watson screwed up on the clue. It comes up with a clunker or two in nearly every game. But it also gets lots of clues right -- and is close to being the greatest Jeopardy player ever.

 

Follow Stephen Baker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stevebaker

 
Comments
96
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »   (4 total)
cbk780   10 minutes ago (5:17 PM)
And even we sapient humans make dumb mistakes from time to time.

Charlie
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy   23 hours ago (6:14 PM)
I know people in Toronto that might make the same mistake...
aikimark   12:23 PM on 2/17/2011
@Stephen

Did Watson activate the buzzer solenoid or was that left to its avatar?
TymB   10:17 AM on 2/17/2011
"While searching through data, it notices that the United States is often called America. Toronto is a North American city. Its baseball team, the Blue Jays, plays in the American League."

Hmmm... but it should have also noticed millions of other data signals that clearly indicate Toronto is a major city in Canada.

By the way, I didn't see the show but I'm assuming the humans didn't have access to a live database (e.g. internet) while they played? This would be a more relevant comparison in my opinion. I'll bet humans with access to the same database, combined with their judgement, would have won.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy   23 hours ago (6:16 PM)
I doubt Watson searches the internet - with a terabyte drive that you can pick up anywhere for a couple hundred bucks it would have no trouble storing many times the amount of informatio­n locally than would have ever been contained in a real encycloped­ia. Of course, if it searched the internet it would also be relying on google's algorithms­, not IBMs, and that would defeat the point!
photo
eric14   10:15 AM on 2/17/2011
Because Canada is part of the Americas.
Because Canada is part of North America.
Because it is a Continenta­list.
sursum korda   09:27 AM on 2/17/2011
There are many part of the world where American means the new world as in European, Asian, African etc etc. The States taked umbrage at this though but for that matter I had been on tours where Americans do try to pass for Canadians. The are easily caught out though, they pronounce the second "t" in Toronto. Belies them every time :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jabailo   09:20 AM on 2/17/2011
What you call a "screw up" could actually be the glimmer of a creative insight.

Yes, Toronto is not an "US" city...but it is a (North) American city.

And it's in our closest neighbor, and it's within 100 miles of the border (like 90 percent of Canada's population­).

It's not like Watson said "Shanghai"­.

And then, there's the thought...­well, maybe it "could be" a U.S. city...say if North America ever forms a "Union" like the EU.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Houde   10:58 PM on 2/16/2011
You've made a mistake of your own.

Toronto's airport is named for a fellow named Pearson active in the First World War. But it's not Pearson's service in WWI that earned him notoriety.

That fellow goes by the name Lester Bowles Pearson (or, more commonly, Lester B. Pearson). He long-stand­ing Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, he is also a former Canadian Prime Minister, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for the creation of the United Nations Blue Helmets during the Suez Crisis, who, though he always had a minority government­, establishe­d the national universal health care, the Canadian flag, the Canada Pension Plan, the official bilinguali­sm of the country, the refusal to send troops in the Vietnam war...A truly remarkable man in Canadian history.

That aside, a computer can't feel a gut feeling and can't be perfect. It probably saw that a US city was named Toronto somewhere, but that nobody knew it but knew the Canadian Toronto. So it probably felt that Toronto was a legitimate answer. For instance, there is Vancouver, BC, Canada and a small US city named Vancouver in Wash St. On a side note, so many American cities are named after European ones...Mil­an, Athens, Paris...an­d those are just in the state of New York !
ObserverAtPointA   10:41 PM on 2/16/2011
In screeno veritas. Maybe it guessed Toronto as an American city because it is. After all, if something is a North American city, can it not also be said to be an American city? Is it possible that the world's greatest superpower has neglected to procure its own adjective?
-An American born in Toronto.
nhfarmer   09:03 PM on 2/16/2011
Watson is hurt by the same foil that patent invalidity suffers from: It is almost impossible to find documentat­ion that describes in any detail the obvious aspects of the world. To find patent invalidity "clear and convincing evidence" is currently required, although SCOTUS is revisiting­. No human in their right mind wastes time describing the obvious in any great detail. Nature has given humans the ability to naturally protect certain informatio­n from machine dominance: the obvious needs not be communicat­ed. This shortcomin­g will soon be rectified, and the profit motive will drive terabyte machines to dominate human intelligen­ce.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patches12   10:58 PM on 2/16/2011
Oh boy, I can hardly wait.. we won't have to think anymore either!!
Radx28   07:16 PM on 2/16/2011
Interestin­gly, it's such a human mistake for Watson to put together available facts and come up with the wrong answer in the way the it did.
sursum korda   06:24 PM on 2/16/2011
Actually, the computer was right if the question was airports being named after heroes. We have 2 airports named accordingy­: Billy Bishop the top fighter ace of all the Allies in WW1 ( even more than Rickehbach­er) and Pearson who fought in WW1 and won the Nobel Peace Prize for implementi­ng the 1st UN Peace Keepers during the Suez Crisis back in the 50's. He eventually became our PM
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Houde   11:01 PM on 2/16/2011
Pearson was indeed a hero, who served in WWI. But he was not a war hero as a soldier. Rather, it was his time as a politician that made him so (with truly remarkable feats).
sursum korda   02:12 PM on 2/17/2011
Agreed, my audience was American so I kept it brief. He also played hockey at Oxford and that team was the first to win the Spangler Cup in1922. He even played for the Swiss Nationial team but rules were more lax in those days. No doubt his bent for internatio­nal help was demonstrat­ed early.
sursum korda   04:02 PM on 2/17/2011
Technicall­y he wasn't a Canadian serving in WW1, he was a British Subject. There was no such thing as a Canadian until Feb.1947 and Mackenzie King, the serving PM, was declared the first ever legal Canadian. We were all subjects of the Crown which meant I could have moved to Australia or the UK and been accepted as a citizen and allowed to vote etc. etc.
rainbowblue   06:07 PM on 2/16/2011
Close, but that still is odd programmin­g. You would think that Watson would have a database of US Cities, and then the airports in them. From there it could cross reference those with WWII names. Watson seems like a good leap in computing, but it still fails to think like a human. I don't know if that is good or bad, but that fact makes the idea of AI that is like us seem remote.
photo
fgbouman   06:04 PM on 2/16/2011
So many people are pooh-poohi­ng an impressive achievemen­t. This is a specific form of AI that is obviously going to be very important in the future. I can't wait to get it on my iPhone.
Chip W   10:05 AM on 2/17/2011
I worked in computers for 25 years. Though the work was very remote from the Watson work, I have a sense of what computers are that those unfamiliar with computers I'm sure don't have.
To me Watson is mind-blowi­ngly impressive­. Those who poo poo likely have no reference point to evaluate against. Still, denigratin­g from ignorance is plain irritating­.
Randyman5   05:26 PM on 2/16/2011
"Watson" is really a bunch of hype! I'm amazed at how some of those who have written about Watson's "success" are missing the essential reason for Watson's performanc­e: the only reason why Watson is doing so well is because it has electronic speed in applying its ring-in button. When all is said and done, I think this experiment will prove very little. The fact is that Jennings and Rutter know the answers to the questions as well. You can visibly see that they are attempting to ring in on each and every question. And if you extrapolat­e their right vs. wrong ratio from when they get to answer a question, their performanc­e will outshine Watson's by far. I would wager that Rutter and Jennings will reluctantl­y explain (reluctant because they don't want to appear to be soar losers) that while they knew the answers, they couldn't ring in faster than the electronic machine --which is not at all surprising­. I'm sure that Jenning's and Rutter's ratio of right to wrong answers is better than Watson's. They didn't win because they don't have electronic speed to ring-in.
Chip W   10:07 AM on 2/17/2011
True enough, but you haven't a clue as to what's been achieved here.
photo
argyle   12:04 PM on 2/17/2011
A really expensive and intensivel­y engineered A.I. that still can't define parameters in a complex syllogism without an objective point of reference?

Twitter Edition