IBM has created a supercomputer that plays the TV game show Jeopardy. In English. And yes, it buzzes in. We can also presume that “Watson,” our new Jeopardy overload, phrases its answers in the form of a question — every time, without fail. And it does all this without being connected to the internet — Watson stores all its answers in an offline database. So are we doomed? Is Jeopardy now going the way of chess, a game where even the best humans can be beaten by a computer? The short answer: not yet.
Network World has a preview of the Watson system entitled IBM’s Jeopardy-playing machine can now beat human contestants. But IBM is being very cagey about which humans, and how often. Here’s a snippet:
IBM’s Jeopardy-playing supercomputer is now capable of beating human Jeopardy contestants on a regular basis, but has a ways to go before it takes on the likes of 74-time champion Ken Jennings.
IBM announced plans to build a computer that can win on Jeopardy last April, and expects to stage a public tournament involving human players and the machine within the next year or so.
The question-answering system, nicknamed “Watson”, is already doing trial runs against people who have actually appeared on the Alex Trebek-hosted Jeopardy. Watson’s competition includes people who qualified for the show but lost, people who appeared and won once, and people who appeared and won twice.
Watson is “working its way up through the ranks,” says David Ferrucci, leader of the project team. “We win some, we lose some. Overall, we’re quite competitive but there’s a ways to go to play the top of the top.”
So how far is “a ways to go?” Apparently IBM reps won’t specify, so I’m willing to bet their machine needs a lot of work. And I’ll just go on record now saying that if Watson beats Ken Jennings (74 times) I’ll eat my hat. Or a hat, anyway. A small, edible hat is what I’ll eat.
Comments (8)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
i was a jeopardy champion and I can tell you the toughest part of jeopardy is getting the timing right for buzzing in. it is a weird combo of when alex stops talking and lights counting down that are above the board. They are not always in sync and you’re locked out if you buzz in too early. Anyhow, my point is that i’d think a computer would have an unfair advantage.
posted by kit on 2-15-2010 at 2:35 pm
I’m sure this can be found some where, but does any one know what the record was before Jennings (how many in a row)?
posted by Michael on 2-15-2010 at 4:07 pm
According to Wikipedia, it was 8. Until 2003, champions had to stop after 5, so there could have been longer runs before if not for the rules.
posted by Kedar on 2-15-2010 at 4:19 pm
@Michael- The rules were changed shortly before Ken Jennings was a contestant. Before the current format, a champion could only win 5 days in a row before winning a prize (I believe a car, but correct me if I’m wrong). This makes me wonder how far some of the 5-day champions from the past could have gone. 74 days is still unbelievable though.
posted by Geoff on 2-15-2010 at 4:21 pm
Geoff, you are correct. For some time in the late-90s/early-2000s, you could win a car at the five game limit.
posted by BG on 2-15-2010 at 5:26 pm
Frank Spangenburg held the highest 5 day total, under the old rules. When the amounts were doubled it took several years for someone to top him. He would have, in his prime topped Ken.
posted by gus on 2-15-2010 at 10:34 pm
but can it handle the audio and video Daily Doubles?
posted by PartiallyDeflected on 2-16-2010 at 12:17 am
Having also been on Jeopardy!, I agree totally with kit. The problem is not that the questions are so diffficult (if you get on the show, you probably know most of the answers), but the timing needs to be perfect. I wonder if they built in some AI “fuzziness” into the buzzing in…
posted by Karthik on 2-16-2010 at 8:40 am