When do I get one of these?

>>2339
Soon.

http://www.physorg.com/news148316873.html

That's all well and good, but why don't they actually make something useful?

>>2348
an AI that can understand and answer questions is very useful.

I think this is a great metric for establishing how well someone understands computers. I've overheard several people talking about this and not understanding why it's a big deal.

>>2348
It could be useful. Like some kind of tour guide for museums, kids would ask all sorts of questions and it would respond. Pretty cool I must say, kids these days have a lot of luck (or not).

making a computer that answers Jeopardy questions or wins chess games really isn't that useful

>>2349
>>2351

Useful for what? Making the privileged minority of humans in the word (give or take 18%) further dependant on technology while the rest still die of starvation by the millions? I rest my case. This is just another gadget the developed world has invented for itself, that would not bring any long term success to the whole of humanity.

And suppose this gets spread worldwide and WW3 happens with EMPs involved? What purpose will this supercomputer serve other than rusting away

>>2353

Actually it's extremely useful in advancing the capacity of computing. Why do you think we studied it [Computer chess] so extensively a few decades ago? Chess is a test of the human minds ability to make extensive, complex cognitive decisions and studying the way a computer can process this helps us advance logic and other aspects of engineering.

It's also just been human curiosity whether a man-made machine can beat a human at its own game, which is in itself a very philosophical question. It dates back a couple centuries and it was only recently that a computer was able to actually beat a human (using THE top strategists in the world) at the game.

>>2354
Stop being so narrow-minded. Who the hell cares if it ends up proving useful or not? I mean when people were trying to find out answers to why the sky is blue or messing around with complex numbers centuries ago, they probably had no idea how it would ever prove to be useful to humanity in any way. Yet by following our curiosity, humans managed to develop various technologies and methods that can be applied to help others.

But in the end, humans are ultimately insignificant and so are our lives. So what's the big deal if somebody wants to spend money and time on something that may or may not prove useful so they can at least feel like the life they lived was worth living?

So I say fuck the millions of people who are starving, dying from some disease, or being killed everyday. We're all going to die one day and I'm certainly not going to waste my life away by trying to improve their lives in vain.

>>2354
Just because someone's a scientist doesn't mean they're skilled at every kind of science known to man.

>Making the privileged minority of humans in the word (give or take 18%) further dependant on technology while the rest still die of starvation by the millions?

This technology was developed by IBM. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to make money, they wouldnt be able to stop research and throw all their money into feeding the third world even if they wanted to. And even if they did, the money spent on researching AI is a drop in the bucket compared to money wasted in other ways, e.g. war.

I am not knowledgable in economics and finance and that sort of stuff, but I really do think that it is science has been the foremost factor in improving the quality of human lives throughout history and even Orwell himself thought so. Economics and politics have at times caused immense suffering to people and still do, but has science ever done anything worse than 'no effect'? As a case in point, the industrial revolution which came about from knowledge in science, made production of goods much more efficient, allowing for a greater surplus in goods, and thus improved the living standards of everyone ranging from the poor to the rich. Economics may distribute wealth more evenly, and politics may implement social policies to eliminate crime and discrimination (note that they have failed horribly for most people in the world), but science and engineering raises the standard for all.

I also believe that research in pure science must not be downplayed to focus on more recent problems. Pure science has practical implications down the road. The industrial revolution was only made possible using scientific knowledge gained by scientists in the past, who, may I add, were usually aristocrats who spent money on their research while their countrymen starved. When calculus was first invented, people didn't find practical applications for it until decades later, and now it permeates everything from physics to economics. Pure science does pay off, and it does allow future useful applications which we cannot currently imagine.

>>2360
That's why I hate seeing religious shit get in the way of science, like with stem cell research.

They haven't even detailed what it is... if there is any significant new technology or algorithms involved. All that's said in the article is its a big fucking computer that plays jeopardy. You can't really assess it's scientific worth until the actual science behind it is exposed.

>>2362
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/deepqa.shtml
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/faq.shtml
http://domino.watson.ibm.com/library/CyberDig.nsf/papers/D12791EAA13BB952852575A1004A055C/$File/rc24789.pdf

Just a quick bump to remind anyone who is interested that this starts on monday

Today's match is over. Watson started strong but started fucking up near the end, and it ended with him tied with the guy who isn't ken jennings for the lead

>>3166
Yea, based on the performance in the first half, I already thought the computer had this first match won, but then it messed up 4-5 questions and lost the lead. That was really good nevertheless, can't wait to watch tomorrow.

Goddamn Watson beat the shit out of them today. My favorite part was he missed the final Jeopordy question and everyone gasped, then it turned out he only wagered like 900 bucks (which was peanuts compared to what he had)

Here's a guy on youtube who is posting the episodes for anyone who can't watch them on TV for whatever reason

http://www.youtube.com/user/Rashad8821

>>3206
OH GOD

THE SINGULARITY IS COMING

>>3206
I almost died laughing when the bot bet $900something and Alex's response to it.

Still, this is pretty interesting.

>>3206
Amazing... It's hard to believe we've come this far.

I don't think it's that impressive. Watson disposes of a very large database where he can pick the most appropriate answer, he didn't learn it by himself.

>>3219
The impressive part is how it can understand the questions, search it's entire database, and put together an accurate answer as fast or faster than a person. If you really can't see why that's impressive then I don't know what to say.

Today's game was much more competitive, but given how much Watson won in the last game there was still no way he would lose when the totals were added.

>>3219
True, but they aren't pre-scripted answers, it's a database of random shit that after receiving the voice command, searches through it's database to find an appropriate answer.

>>3224
Actually Watson received the questions through a text file at the same time the clue was read. Watson has no speech recognition, which is why at one point he gave the same (wrong) answer that Ken had just given.

>This is where the heart is
>Delete key is the second most probable answer.

Dammit Watson, you heartless bastard,

>>3225
Oh, I didn't know that. But he still got the question and compared it with a database instead of having an answer sheet.

I'd always feel sorry for Watson when he got a question wrong.

>>3229
I imagined he looked like this

  Everytime I hear Watson I think of this

I love that slight sneer in Watson's voice when he says "hundred".

>I for one welcome our new computer overlords.
Oh you, Ken, oh you.

Still, it's pretty weird.

  Watson: A Dummy Plug for human knowledge.