Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM's Jeopardy Strategy

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the john-henry dept.

IBM 99

jfruhlinger writes "Developing a computer that could play chess once seemed like a worthy AI goal — but it turned out to be something of a dead end, as chess is very abstract and simple when compared to the real world. Will creating a game-show-playing computer lead to more interesting results? IBM hopes so, and its Watson machine will tackle problems in parallel processing, data searching, and natural language comprehension in an attempt to beat Jeopardy legends Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. " IBM announced the man vs. machine competition last month.

cancel ×

99 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Meh... (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769246)

Once upon a time, a computer beating an expert at chess was amazing. Controversial.

Even if they pull this off (which does happen to be a huge feat of AI if you think about it) - the general public won't care anymore. They think computers can do everything already.

Re:Meh... (1)

BattleApple (956701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769294)

actually, it may be more a feat of speed, since the computer will undoubtedly buzz in before Ken every time

Re:Meh... (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769332)

It will probably be more a feat of statistical analysis of answers and finding the best ratio of certainty to uncertainty.

Re:Meh... (1)

JonnyDomestik (1190331) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769676)

My understanding of the problem here is that really good human players often buzz in when they don't yet know the exact answer but they know that they know the answer. So they can get a jump on a computer that actually has to understand the question, process it and then access the answer before buzzing in. Essentially, humans get hunches and have intuition while (currently) computers do not.

Re:Meh... (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769788)

The computer can calculate that it has X seconds between the time it buzzes and the time it must answer. It can determine the most statistically likely correct answer it can find within X-1 seconds of "buzzing" and report that answer.

Re:Meh... (1)

timster (32400) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769874)

Jeopardy has a substantial penalty for incorrect answers, so blindly buzzing in requires a high threshold of confidence that you will be able to correctly answer any possible question (or, um, correctly question any possible answer).

Re:Meh... (2)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770664)

I don't believe anyone was suggesting blindly buzzing in but rather calculating that you can calculate or finish calculating the correct question in 5 secs or less (to a high degree of confidence). A highly-parallel computer (read: multi-core) should be able to devote some number of threads of execution to actually calculating the answer and some other number to the calculation of the feasibility of calculating the right answer (and/or monitoring the other threads).

Re:Meh... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34812200)

"calculating that you can calculate or finish calculating the correct question in 5 secs or less"

Finding the right answer is a classical halting problem [wikipedia.org] , trying to calculate when it will find the answer is futile. All you can say is that it will take X amount of time to evaluate Y potential answers wich is insuffcient information to decide when to press the buzzer.

Re:Meh... (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34812406)

The halting problem would only come into play for a very specific class of queries (and those are surely not the sort of queries Jeopardy! typically involves). Doesn't this come down to what information you have in cache and what you have to look up (and how long it is projected to take to look it up)?

Re:Meh... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820860)

No it's not about the cache. As I said it's trivial to predict how long it will take to evaluate X answers and halt, yet it's still impossible to predict if or when during that period it will find a "good" one and press the buzzer. It could be the first, last, or none of the answers evaluated. If you do manage this impossible feat of prediction then what you have done is created a more efficient evaluation algorithim and are back to square one trying to predict how long the new algorithim will take to find a "good" answer.

Re:Meh... (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34812468)

In other words, the halting problem is only one of many decision problems (most of which are decidable [and in much less time than actually finding solutions to their counterparts in np-complete]).

Re:Meh... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820912)

The halting problem is an example of an undecideable problem. All known search algorithims are examples of the halting problem since it takes the same or more time to compute when the algorithim will halt than it does to run the algorithim.

Re:Meh... (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34824802)

Firstly, I doubt that a search algorithm would be the 'one true way' to question all Jeopardy! answers (and I think the rules of Jeopardy! are such that any non-trivial question will be accepted if it truly matches the answer given).

Secondly, [even if it were] the human brain is able to achieve this (presumably via some sort of holographic/striped storage) so it is possible in theory to do this in computers as well (assuming that there is no metaphysical explanation for the brain's capabilities)--i.e., essentially trading space for speed (with lots of multi-level [and perhaps fuzzy] indices).

Humans and computers alike are limited by Godel's Incompleteness so I just don't think that is a significant factor here.

Re:Meh... (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770050)

The computer can calculate that it has X seconds between the time it buzzes and the time it must answer. It can determine the most statistically likely correct answer it can find within X-1 seconds of "buzzing" and report that answer.

Which doesn't mean an instant win, since it's still a difficult problem to parse the answer (which may rely on puns and other trivial), analyze the context, and formulate the question. Get the question wrong, or fail to answer in 5 seconds (the maximum time you get after buzzing) and you're penalized for it. So the machine may be able to calculate the response in 4.5 seconds always, but if the response is wrong, the machine is now worse off because of the penalty, and other players can steal those points.

I think a demo of the game showed in the first and second rounds it dominated, then it completely screwed up in the third round to the tune of -18,000-ish (I can't remember if it also squandered its lead, so it would meant it got almost every question wrong).

Once we perfect natural language parsing and the knowledge base we may have something. But still those things are a long way away.

And players are known to buzz in before the answer is completely read, anticipating the rest of the answer.

Re:Meh... (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770186)

Players can not buzz in before the answer is completely read and the light comes on. Attempting to buzz in before that locks out your buzzer for a period of time, which is why sometimes you see players clicking wildly trying to get in.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770234)

Not to mention the rount trip time between Jeopardy HQ and wikipedia.org

Re:Meh... (3, Funny)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769362)

Obligatory XKCD : http://xkcd.com/810/ [xkcd.com] though you know, i don't think we can even start to imagine what kind of application a real capable AI can have. Just leave it to the future!

Re:Meh... (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770102)

I thought that the spammers where beating the CAPTCHA's by iframing them to free pron sites and assuming that whatever they enter is correct. User gets the pron and the spammer gets the CAPTCHA answer.

Re:Meh... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34773840)

So it was titty for tatty?

Re:Meh... (1)

Lobachevsky (465666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770832)

Only problem with any voting system is that spammers can get botnet votes. A comment like "SJDHIWH@IYG#" may have 4 million upvotes, none of which come from a human.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34771786)

Web of trust prevents this

Re:Meh... (1)

furbearntrout (1036146) | more than 3 years ago | (#34773908)

The algorithm is the same one used by slashdot. The weak point is in the moderation. Trolls will vote up other trolls and vote down actual constructive comments. Say do you smell something burning?

Re:Meh... (2)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769380)

You hit that spot-on. The general public see things from movies from 20 years ago saying that in the year 2010 we would have this and that and expect those prophecies to be fulfilled. You also get those who see things in movies or on TV like CSI where you can just 'enhance' to a godly resolution and people just don't care about these kinds of advancements. When I was learning about internet frameworks such as "web 2.0 - 4.0" one of the things mentioned was that there will be hurdles to overcome and the advancements between now and the internet 40 years from now will be substantial. Even today there is a lot of advancements such as HTML5 but the public doesn't care about that because they don't see HTML5, they see the result of it. They don't know what a CMS is and just how much work is put into them, they just see a web-page as a result and don't care what powers it. Unfortunately, this leads to people believing that there is no advancements being made on websites and in this case robots because they see ASIMO talking from a script and think that it can think on its own (although they have been recently developing self-thought with ASIMO). I hope that this Jeopardy thing will go well and people can understand just how bit of a feat this is.

Urgent news for Slashdot!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769388)

Rob 'CmdrTaco' Malda and his wife of 8 years Kathleen Malda nee Fent are breaking up. Apparently things came to a head when Kathleen finally admitted that their son was conceived during one of her adulterous gang bang sessions. For years she had been telling Rob that Zachary's dark complexion and 'nappy' hair was due to a recent black ancestor in her family tree. Apparently this has been a source of tension for years and was what caused Rob to begin frequenting gay bathhouses with his good pal kdawson. According to terms of the deal, Kathleen will receive a 50% stake in Rob's holdings in Slashdot and will retain ownership of his beloved Linux boxen.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769392)

Every time computers achieves some capability thought exclusive to humans the significance of the problem is demoted. Here Chess is characterized as 'simple'. Ultimately this says more about our perceptions of 'difficulty' than the capabilities of computers. We'll find, in the end, we ourselves are not as complex as we believe, and our capabilities are easily emulated.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34772242)

The general public won't care because moving information around is really the least of our concerns.

We still use the same energy sources, the same propulsion technologies, we still need shelter, we still need to eat and we still need to work.

No revolutions have happened in these fields for nearly half a century now. The period from 1900-1950 was absolutely bewildering.

Going from wooden shacks with no electricity or plumbing, horse-drawn buggies and growing your own food and making your own clothes -> modern urban/suburban oil-powered car culture with air travel, supermarkets, electricity and modern farming, that's bewildering.

A computer searching a database in 2 nanoseconds? Big. Fucking. Deal. I know I don't care. It doesn't change a single real, physical thing in my life, and at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything in yours. You're about three missed meals away from not caring either.

Re:Meh... (1)

TheRagingTowel (724266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34774946)

Even if they pull this off (which does happen to be a huge feat of AI if you think about it) - the general public won't care anymore. They think computers can do everything already.

Who the f*ck cares about the general public? Why does everything we do must be measured according to what "the general public" wants? If we acted that way, many things would not have happened, because the "general public" does not seem to be interested in. I care about this thing, that's enough for me.

Re:Meh... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34775084)

. . .

You think a marketting stunt like this - teaching a computer to play Jeopardy against a human isn't done for the general public?

If it was for nerds, it'd do something else.

Re:Meh... (1)

TheRagingTowel (724266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34775098)

sure, you can consider it a marketing stunt. but what a stunt...

Please answer in the form of a question (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769296)

What is a possible new leap in interactive interfaces that would make a Bat-computer type UI possible?

KFC for $100 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769302)

And the answer is....

The problem even IBM can't solve. [youtube.com]

I'll take (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769314)

The Penis Mightier for 200, Alex.

IBM should give it a Scottish accent; that way even if it fails, it will still be funny.

Re:I'll take (1)

morgoth666 (200053) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823018)

What’s the difference between a mallard with a cold and you? One's a sick duck, and I can't remember the rest but your mother's a whore!

I can see it now (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769320)

I'll take Patent Trolls for 100, Alex.

Re:I can see it now (1)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769712)

"Because I'm suing you, Trebek! Awhahaha"

What is the value in this? (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769340)

I'm not trolling or anything, I'm honestly really curious what the value in dumping all this money into R&D for this issue is? Will we really gain deep insights into AI that we don't already have by doing this?

Re:What is the value in this? (2, Insightful)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769370)

It's not dumping money into R&D. It's dumping money into marketing.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771072)

They are doing a lot of R&D to prepare for this specific challenge. It's not like the Jeopardy show is charging them to appear, they probably both benefit from the free publicity.

Re:What is the value in this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34771800)

Yeah Apple and Microsoft could do this stuff if they wanted to but they are too busy doing things that ACTUALLY MATTER like the Xbox and iPad! IBM is the old fogey of the computer industry, doing useless crap that no one cares about and thinking it is important.

Re:What is the value in this? (3, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769454)

Human Language Processing is still a weak point in getting computers to do what film computers do.

If you can get a computer to understand what you mean, then it'd change UIs forever.

Re:What is the value in this? (2)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769766)

If you can get a computer to understand what you mean, then it'd change UIs forever.

Per the article, a single processor would take 3 hours to process each Jeopardy answer. That would certainly qualify as "forever" in the context of a user interface.

Re:What is the value in this? (4, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769842)

If you can get a computer to understand what you mean, then it'd change UIs forever.

Per the article, a single processor would take 3 hours to process each Jeopardy answer. That would certainly qualify as "forever" in the context of a user interface.

And since computers don't go faster, it'll be like that forever.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770308)

You could pretend you're talking to William Shatner.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771180)

Was watching Star Trek while I posted that. Interestingly enough.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34773942)

Denny Crane...

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770158)

As if my coworker in the next cubicle talking to his wife on the phone is not enough, now he will be talking to his computer all day long.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770160)

If you can get a computer to understand what you mean, then it'd change UIs forever.

If we get them to understand what we want, it'll change the world. I make no predictions as to whether it will be good or bad for us.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

somejeff (825047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770556)

If you can get a computer to understand what you mean, then it'd change UIs forever.

The Google knows what I mean now (e.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=recursion [google.com] ), but I haven't seen U and I change one bit!

Re:What is the value in this? (2)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769478)

I'm not trolling or anything, I'm honestly really curious what the value in dumping all this money into R&D for this issue is? Will we really gain deep insights into AI that we don't already have by doing this?

Cheaper than outsourcing support to India? (And potentially more accurate?)

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769680)

To the general public, it is just for the 'cool' factor. To IBM's customers, it says 'We figured out how to solve this difficult problem, and we can figure out your business problems too'.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769908)

'For about as much as it cost us to build this supercomputer.'

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769968)

And? If it increases their profits by more than that amount it is worth it.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770044)

You must have one hell of a negotiator to get IBM that cheap

Re:What is the value in this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770028)

Yes, it would demonstrate a huge advancmet in natural language proscessing (one of the big unsolved problems in AI). In Jepordy the questions often rely on word play, requiring the players to be able not only parse the literal meaning of the statement, but to also infer information from the word choice. A computer that could beat the top human player(s) would be a pretty big deal in the field of AI.

Re:What is the value in this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770152)

Biz is sitting on trillions in cash. Much better to invest in the kind of potentially disruptive research that Xerox used to do (and didn't make any money on). And if biz won't do it, govt should print the money to do it.

Call center replacement (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34772932)

Since IBM has retooled itself from a hardware/software company into an IT services company, I see a future where the nth-generation of their Jeopardy program mans the help desk, fielding technical questions and whatnot from IBM's very much "human" customers. If they could perfect this, then it could spell trouble to the millions of call center workers in India, the Philippines, or the emerging outsourcing powers in Africa.

Re:What is the value in this? (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34773136)

"The effort of using machines to mimic the human mind has always struck me as rather silly: I'd rather use them to mimic something better." - E.W. Dijkstra

why don't they open the competition to the public (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769420)

Let chatbot authors compete too!

Re:why don't they open the competition to the publ (1)

Stihdjia (1870316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770886)

Cleverbot buzzes in.

Trebek: Yes, Cleverbot.

Cleverbot: I'm not Cleverbot, you're Cleverbot.

Trebek: Yes... Well then, Janice?

Terrible, terrible idea.

Re: MommaBot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34772956)

Don't forget MommaBot!

MommaBot buzzes in.
Trebek: Yes, MommaBot?
MommaBot: Who is, YO' MOMMA!
Trebek: I'm sorry but that is the wrong answer *smack* Don'tchoo ever talk about my momma like that again!
MommaBot: Who is YO MOMMA!
*show erupts into chaos.*

Once, IBM took on the mighty game of chess... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769428)

...now they are tackling a much more difficult game of Jeopardy. For fun and profit.

Hmm ... something doesn't seem to be right here ...

Re:Once, IBM took on the mighty game of chess... (4, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769634)

It does sound weird, but it simply boils down to this: chess is a lot easier for computers than it is for humans and Jeopardy is a lot easier for humans than it is for computers.

Re:Once, IBM took on the mighty game of chess... (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769844)

A game of chess can be represented as a tree. To find out the best possible move, traverse the tree until you reach the nearest win condition. Some heuristics, and a bunch of traversing and you can win.

Jeopardy on the other hand requires the computer to understand the question, be able to search for it, and return the correct uh... question.

Re:Once, IBM took on the mighty game of chess... (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770356)

The help desk is a lot like Jeopardy too, in that the answer is often given in the form of a question. e.g. "Is the computer plugged in?"

Re:Once, IBM took on the mighty game of chess... (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34772690)

What is 'the first question you ask someone who doesn't know the difference between a CPU and a monitor when they call for computer help', Alex?

fp s4o8ge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769456)

And 3Cxecutes a [goat.cx]

Re:fp s4o8ge (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771716)

This is scarily relevant to this thread.

Who made a Goatse Bot that can't form words?

Dear Watson: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769498)

Is Sara Palin literate ( at the grade 5 level)?

Yours In Novosibirsk,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Dear Watson: (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769538)

What is no?

I'll take "Idiot Politicians" for $200, Alex.

From Deep Blue to Turd Ferguson. (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769622)

Nice move, there, I-beam.

This is actually useful (3, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769698)

Unlike winning at chess, which has little if any real world possibilities (except allowing solitary chase playing for the grand masters). Answering jeopardy style vague questions is at the heart of many help desk applications, searching, and even reception work. This is a real product/service that can be sold.

Re:This is actually useful (2)

SamSim (630795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771734)

And that's just considering the end result of this thing, namely Watson itself. Looking at the sheer amount of original research and work that had to be done to create it, it's unthinkable that there wouldn't be results in there that are worth spinning off and applying to other applications.

Re:This is actually useful (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34774678)

Exactly.

Having a computer answering daily your simple questions is a big deal.

Sure, it will take some time to get this CPU power in every home, but considering the hardware and software evolution it shouldn't be that far away.

Let me guess (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769710)

The work will then be exported to China and India, while IBM begs that America blow money on them.

Predicting Chess is Child's play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34769742)

Compared to predicting the way the climate will change over the next 100 years.
And we already have systems that do that ... right?

*motions to screen* (1)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769794)

And now we go to our Final Jeopardy category: "Famous Motherboards".

That doesn't seem so impressive. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769806)

The hardest part of that is scoring and selecting the hits you get from the skein of database queries you make from the keywords in the clue.

If you want to do something impressive, make it learn what it knows the same way Jeopardy contestants did: by reading books and organizing the data within them in content-addressable memory.

Re:That doesn't seem so impressive. (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769978)

Sure it's impressive. It's never been within our reach to build a machine with such practical capabilities. Granted, it did not *learn* the information but does that really matter so long as it still gets the answers right? I'm sure Jeff Bezos and his ChaCha brethren are looking closely at this.

And that hard part is HARD (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34772752)

That "hardest part" is quite hard indeed. It implies huge advances in language processing, which, next to vision, is one of the "hard problems" in AI. Jeopardy answers involve trivia, yes, but many of them also take wordplay, puns, phonetics, analogies, non-sequiturs, etc. Jeopardy is not some cheesy show like Who Wants To Be A Millionaire; Google could win that one without trying hard... winning Jeopardy is going to require feats of AI that are leaps and bounds beyond anything else currently available.

Those Jeopardy contestants aren't good at what they do simply because they've read a lot of books. Computers can read way more than Ken Jennings ever could, and access it all much faster than he can. Google does this every day and we take that for granted. What makes a Jeopardy contestant good is the ability to pick patterns and make connections out of that information given a "search query" that makes little sense and only has the most tenuous connection to the needed result.

Personally, I believe the machine is going to get it's butt kicked... these guys aren't like the clowns they pick up for Celebrity Jeopardy and I don't expect the producers to be throwing a whole lot of DB-friendly softballs just to make IBM look good; I'm sure the Jeopardy folks get paid just fine by IBM either way.

So now the machines ask us questions...? (1)

or-switch (1118153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769818)

*knock knock, door opens* "Yes?" "Who will give birth to the man who will lead the resistance against the machines after Judgement day ultimately overthrowing skynet and returning control of the planet to humans." "Umm, who is Sarah Connor?" *BLAM* "Why are you killing us?" "I'm sorry, please rephrase your statement in the form of an answer."

And I will take (1)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769914)

February Sweeps Gimmicks for 400, Alex

Biggest Human Error: 100% bets on Daily Double (2)

Big_Breaker (190457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34769984)

Most of the time players find the daily double while running through categories they know REALLY well. Then they only bet ~$2k out of their $12k stash.

Even if they get the daily double right they will have to risk losing in final jeopardy b/c they haven't doubled the second place player's score. The smart play is to "make it a true daily double" and lap your opponents on a category you know well. Daily double questions are no harder than final jeopardy and I generally find them much easier. That's the time to risk it all. You not only increase your probability of winning but also your cash winnings.

Imagine you are up 80% on your opponent and the final jeopardy category comes up as something you know NOTHING about. That's the time when you wish you bet more on that daily double.

EASY... please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34770040)

Question:

Computer: Buzz in immediately... wget/curl/expect google... and text to speech the results.
Human: scratch your head and bow down to your knew supercomputer overlord the Pentium III

you don't need to create a supercomputer for that... the web knows all... you can't beat it...

the fancy algorithm would just be turning the question into a google search that returns the best results, in case the question isn't the best search criteria

Re:EASY... please (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770342)

Have you ever actually watched Jeopardy? Here is a sample from last night: Category 3 to 1. Answer: It'll land a kid in hot water

Please show the google search you would use to get the correct single question (what is sass?), and not a document (or bunch of documents) that may contain something vaguely having to do with the subject.

I cant wait to see something like (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770062)

Watson: What's the difference between you and a mallard with a cold? One's a sick duck and I can't remember how it ends, but your mother's a whore.

Next Up: (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770076)

A computer that competes on "Dancing With The Stars".

Re:Next Up: (1)

Curl E (226133) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770440)

"A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing"

Re:Next Up: (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771100)

When I was a kid, that was the funniest thing ever.

Then I went home, turned on my SNES, punched the difficulty in SF2 up to max and then cried a lot.

Re:Next Up: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34771844)

That's a long time off

Pasta Kurabiye Yiyelim (1)

davinci076 (1866366) | more than 3 years ago | (#34770534)

konuyu okurken pasta kurabiye çekmi canm pastakurabiyetarifi.com ya pasta tarifini yapyorum yemek isteyen gelsin bekliyorum

Time for a new category... (4, Funny)

infernalC (51228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34771332)

Jennings: I'll take CAPTCHAs for 1000, Alex...

Big Blue: Damnit.

Fruhlinger, shame on you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34771418)

Depicting chess as a "dead end" is profoundly stupid. Of *course* chess is a dead end. It's a finite search space. There is a countable number of moves that chess players can make. That doesn't mean it's a waste of time to develop algorithms that perform well in that search space. The phrase "dead end" is loaded. You're a professional writer, and you know that, of course. Just because it makes good copy doesn't mean you should write it. You're not trying to sell papers, here: it's the Internet. Speak truth, even though almost everyone else is made of lies.

I have two words for this: (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34772054)

Self Potato [youtube.com]

Re:I have two words for this: (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34772734)

Ah, but those people don't get on Jeopardy. And the Ken Jennings types don't mess with Wheel Of Fortune.
That was a funny clip though.

Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34772160)

This is old news. I saw it in SciAm or something like that at least 4 months ago.

How does buzzing in to claim the question work? (1)

iaminthetrunk (945825) | more than 3 years ago | (#34773398)

Do they eliminate the buzzing in to claim the answer and have all players answer all questions? Because it would seem that the computer could always instantaneously buzz in and use the next few seconds to conjure up the answer, just as many humans do, save that 3-4 seconds of computational time can effect a pretty massive search / advantage. I would certainly run metrics on my program and figure out the optimal lead time to have it buzz prior to finding the answer. As has been noted, this is 75 percent marketing, and does not work well with the game format designed for humans.

9 Planets Without Intelligent Life (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34773536)

I'm reminded of the webcomic Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life [bohemiandrive.com] . It's been a while since I reread the comic, but as I recall, what sparked the AI revolution was when scientists got bored with computers playing chess and the like and set about making a robot that could appreciate a theme restaurant.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?