Ken Jennings: Watson, Jeopardy and me, the obsolete know-it-all
wie Sie tun, machen, Film, Beispiel
17m 53sLänge
Trivia whiz Ken Jennings has made a career as a keeper of facts; he holds the longest winning streak in history on the U.S. game show Jeopardy. But in 2011, he played a challenge match against supercomputer Watson -- and lost. With humor and humility, Jennings tells us how it felt to have a computer literally beat him at his own game, and also makes the case for good old-fashioned human knowledge. (Filmed at TEDxSeattleU.) TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more. Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate Follow TED news on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tednews Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED Subscribe to our channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector
Kommentare
-
1 tb?
-
That was incredible!
-
Very clever e very funny. Thanks
A forza di guardare Sherlock Holmes scopro che Watson è decisamente più in gamba non solo di lui ma di tutti noi ed è già in azione a svolgere compiti manuali e intellettuali per i quali siamo in gran parte pagati.
Il fatto però è che lo fa ad una velocità di gran lunga superiore e senza sosta. Una machine learning è già in grado di svolgere compiti in ambito assicurativo e in 16 MINUTI HA EFFETTUATO IL LAVORO CHE 2 IMPIEGATI SVOLGONO IN UN ANNO...
Prepariamoci gente, la maggior parte di noi avrà, tra non molto, un sacco di tempo per andare al mare, a divertirsi, a volersi bene.
Va beh, senza stipendio, ma questo è un piccolo dettaglio a cui solo in pochi stanno pensando. E certo non ci pensano tutti quelli che inorridiscono al pensiero del reddito di cittadinanza. -
Ken, how much did IBM pay you to be a cheerleader for its product? If it wasn't definitive from your "final Jeopardy answer" vs. Watson, it is crystal clear now. Besides, all it did was click faster. You could beat a process with double or 100 times its processing, simply by clicking faster. The ONLY reason Watson won was from clicking faster. Watch the tape. A child can see it.
Please. Obviously, ridiculously obviously, Ken knew more than 8 or 10 answers each game. So did Brad. Ken: why are you delivering this cheerleading missive, when in truth, and in fact, Watson is not nearly as smart? -
Glad I found this. Very informative piece and it really helps bind quite a few other videos I've seen discussing the implications of this kind of tech on the economy.
Coldfusion approached it as an engineering marvel and CGP Grey's more economical approach was decidedly more negative. -
In this day and age, all the information anyone needs is searchable on Wikipedia. Watson searches copies of websites already fed into its memory before Jeopardy comes on, so it's just doing the same stuff any human can do by searching the web, only it can do it in the amount of time it takes for Alex Trebek to read a clue.
-
npr brought me here
-
No one can beat Google at Trivia. It knows all!
-
Ken Jennings resorting to ad hominem attacks against a computer. Guess all that trivia didn't include debate skills.
-
Dystopian future all the way. If I had to choose..
-
A want to see a portable watson, plugs into a regular power socket, fits into the boot of a car. Wonder if a team of CUDA graphics card could do this.
-
One smart 10 year old saved 100 people. What would have happened if everyone had a computer personal assistant that could put things together as well as Watson? Nearly everyone would have been warned instead of just 100 out of over 5000 in Thailand.
-
Watson has an extremely unfair advantage due to the fact that none of its computational (neurological) load has to do with looking after autonomic, proprioceptive, vestibular systems and (additional/peripheral) sensory-motor coordination and feedback. I bet you if you could add these extra- typically biological- encumbrances to its computational responsibilities it would be as responsive as a wet sponge.
-
No it's not a question of choosing our destiny. We have set this ball in motion and it will continue to pick up speed until it hit a bump or gets to the bottom.
-
A few racy jokes for a Mormon.
-
I hear a bitter-bitter man...
-
We can already teach computers emotion if we want to but it is probably something best left to humans. All it takes is cognitive functions and then feed it trillions of emotional situations and human responses to it. As long as it can interpret it properly it will become a master of social intelligence. The computer might not have true feelings, but it understands how it should emotionally react to any given situation. I'm sure IBM can build a robot that can be your friend. You would even argue with it every once in a while! But it could grow to be your best pal and be able to show unconditional friendship and kindness. This is kind of scary if you ask me. Because emotion and feelings are the biggest advantage we have over computers. But even emotion can be taught. Just like emotionally challenged people (usually autistic people that have remarkable gifts) can follow programs that help them understand social situations better. Except with computers you can teach it a lot faster and more efficiently. It's the cognitive functions that potentially can make computers do ANYTHING!
Just imagine going to a robot psych and it really makes you feel better after each session, lol. -
I like his sense of humor.
-
We just need to be able to reach information directly with brain-machine interface.
-
He brings up important points, but kind of conservative.