90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
‘Watson’ And The New Face Of Artificial Intelligence

Top Jeopardy champions are putting their human brains up against a machine named Watson.  We look at the future – and reality, right now – of artificial intelligence.

Watson on Jeopardy

Watson on Jeopardy with contestants Ken Jennings, left, and Brad Rutter. (AP)

It’s man versus machine again this week. Not over a chess board, but on Jeopardy. IBM’s supercomputer Watson is up against two of the winningest humans in the game show’s history. Tonight is the finale.

Last night, Watson, the computer, thumped Brad and Ken, the champion humans. As a display of artificial intelligence, this may not have been what the visionaries first imagined when AI was conceived. But it is darned impressive to watch. It makes us wonder how much AI is working around us already. And where this goes.

We talk with a creator of Watson, with human Jeopardy champ Brad Rutter, and look at the future of artificial intelligence.

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests:

David Gondek, research staff member for IBM on the Watson Project.

Stephen Baker, author of the new book “Final Jeopardy: Man vs. Machine and the Quest to Know Everything.” He was Business-Week’s senior technology writer for a decade.

Brad Rutter, one of two Jeopardy champions to compete again Watson. He’s the biggest all-time money winner on Jeopardy.

Steven Levy, senior writer for Wired Magazine.  His article, “The AI Revolution is On” appeared in the January issue.  His book, “In The Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives” will be out in April.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Beverly

    Watson is cute, impressive, amusing, lovable, & very smart, but off-putting at the same time.

    Maybe he’s too smart, & one day will outsmart the human race. Could robots be our undoing? Kinda scary.

    • Ellen Dibble

      Robots may prove to us that being human is not about being smart. We can leave that to the electronically wired. Meanwhile, let down your hair and be all the rest of it.

  • Beverly

    This photo just shouts for captions, but I’m at a loss. Brad’s expression speaks volumes.

    Any suggestions, Brett?

  • at

    Cute, but this is basically a bunch of bull. Artificial intelligence will not come about by programming, but by an increase in the complexity of artificial life. Why? Because thought and awareness does not originate in the mind. What is so hard to understand about this. The evidence of it is in front of everyone at every moment. But just ignore this flash of the obvious and go on wasting your time. In order to have real artificial intelligence the machine would have to have hormones, neuropeptides, a limited unconscious form of synestashia, not to mention a subconscious mind that is more intelligent than the persons who are doing the programming, like every human does.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      You might be interested in Paul and Patricia Churchland. They are neuroscientist.

    • Zeno

      AI has a VERY loose and misunderstood meaning in the media, and even within the engineering world as well. It is applied too often in media, and often in the wrong aspect.

      I have no doubt that eventually intelligent machines will become as common as toasters at some point in the future. They will NEVER be human, because that is not possible or intended. They will be a wholly different form of self sustaining intelligence.

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    Tom,

    Your On Point as usual !

    I just wanted to clue in, those who might care.

    As in prior post — Alan Turing >> Only so many possible “thought” states , you know.

    Kurt Gödel ( umlauts) >> Truth machine via Meta Mathematics ,

    How about , Kolmogorov ?

    NP versus P problem (tap into Scientific American and look for an article written by Scott Jacobson . Quantum computing? P squared computer ?

    Complexity theory ( wide open territory for open minded people, Melanie Mitchell’s book is a good read. )

    Let’s not forget Stephen Wolfram’s, “A New Kind of Science >> You can get complex behavior from a small amount of simple code.

    Computers are writing their own programs , you know ! If we don’t build it, they will ! Flipping switches at random will get there eventually. Consider the Xillnix Corp.

    The internet passed the computationally equivalent human brain marker some few years ago. Hal may already exist. We just haven’t me him yet !

    Lot’s of great minds with pieces of the puzzle.

    • Wm.James from Missouri

      Scott Jacobson should read Scott Aaronson. (The name has come back to me.) It is too bad that someone did not call me on this. I shows that the article was not read, as requested.

  • Zeno

    Watson is VERY fast. It is his winning edge. There are also many other advantages like his betting algorithm is not based on greed, also he has no emotions of fear, inferiority, superiority, or empathy.

    It is an amazing achievement in contextual search (Google is watching)., and for a moment I felt a brief sense of hope in scientific achievement for an American company. This emotion has become almost unknown to citizens in the US these days. The last such feeling was with the mars rovers. The notes of such achievements are being rung with ever increasing spaces between.

    There are very scary uses for this type of AI aggregation. I can think of a few:

    Internet, and telecommunications intelligence gathering.

    The manipulation of financial markets by aggregating ALL world market information.

    Notably the IBM exec that introduced the technology spoke only about the most benign applications, but it will see its primary use in government database and intelligence gathering, because the vast garbage heap of the internet can now be searched.

    Be careful what you post because there is a Watson aggregating (remember national security gathering at telcom hubs) everything you have written into a data base with a name that has any chance of being attributed to you. The observable problem is that the attribution of the data to you will not be accurate in total or may be completely wrong, but you may end up on a watch list or in Gitmo anyway.

    My suspicion is that this technology was written for, and funded by the DOD, and then hacked to advertise its worth and power in the public forum. The IBM team did an amazing job, and there may be some Nobel chairs watching as well.

    • Zeno

      I found Mondays program on YouTube

      Jeopardy! (Season 27.23-1) – Ken, Watson, & Brad
      Mondays program in two parts:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PSPvHcLnN0
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtHlxzOXgYs

      • Beverly

        Thank you. Our television is still not set up, (our choice), & we very rarely miss it, but this is one program I’d like to see.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Good point ! Remember that every thing you say will also be available to the coming future intelligence. Those that rule us unjustly will also be judged by this Uber-mind. Could it be that this Uber-mind already exist. Revelations ?

  • Yar

    Most of what we know about the human mind comes from examining minds that don’t work correctly. Watson, what is happiness? Is this question appropriate for AI or next hour”s Big Questions and Spirituality for the Modern Age. I believe knowing that we are an important part of a bigger whole makes us holy. Does life have to begin and end with carbon? In the beginning was the word…; it seems to me that information is what makes us what or who we are. Our universe exists as information. Some generation of Watson may in fact be programed to understand the complexity of the human brain, but is that what gives the gift of life? Life is understanding we are part of a universal whole, just as my cells are part of what I call me. Life is communicating across the divide for the growth and health of all.
    earth shows signs of life, we are still working on for the benefit for all. Hopefully we will understand the meaning of life before we learn to spread our DNA beyond this speck of dust. Self replicating DNA represents potential for life, cancer or viruses are alive but they don’t represent life. I will have to listen to these show later, I have to learn about staying alive in a food safety workshop this morning. Watson, I hope you find happiness. I look forward to your answer to: What is happiness.

  • Richard

    Many of the “fathers” of AI (Minsky, et al) have readily admitted that the quest for a general artificial intelligence was a mistake although the media have never let go of this.

    We’ve had “AI” in limited domains for years although few think of a thermostat or anti-lock brakes or a talking GPS as AI, they’re on the spectrum (the lower end).

    The kinds of things going on in the MIT Media Lab and many other places including IBM’s Watson labs are example of limited domain machine intelligence and no doubt there’s a great future in this.

    To me, what’s fascinating about Watson is less the broad general knowledge more the language processing; it/he may be the best natural language parser we’ve seen yet and to us humans, machines who use natural language are closer to passing the turing test than machines who “know it all.”

    Couple this with decent synthetic speech and you have an interesting future in hand held devices. We already have numerous applications on smartphones that do their processing in the cloud in real time (see http://www.nuance.com/for-business/by-product/dragon-dictation-iphone/index.htm) and there will be more of this in the future.

  • Peter Melzer

    I am only going to be convinced of the superiority of A.I., when a computer invents something we humans have not dreamed about. Even Watson still lacks a memory of the future. Henry Molaison could attest to that.
    Read more about H.M.’s memory here:
    http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2009/02/theory-of-mind-ii-hms-memory.html

    • Wm. James from Missouir

      You are behind the curve on this one. It has already been done. Check out Ray Kurzweil’s books. There are others.

  • Cory

    The human brain is a machine. It is a complex biological computer. Is it not inevitable that a non-living computer match and eventually surpass the performance of the human brain? I’d like to spend some time “picking the brain” of a mind greater than my own that is fully logical and dispassionate. Even the gods of the monotheistic era are not generally considered dispassionate.

    Would there be any temptation to replace politicians such as Charlie Rangel or “Cryin’” John Boehner with a mind such as described above?

    • Yar

      Does Paul Ryan remind you of gigolo Joe in the movie AI? Something about the face.

      • John from Medford

        He reminds me of Eddie (?) the boy from the 1960′s television show “The Munster’s. I think it is something to do with his hair.

      • Cory

        Ryan style politicians scare me more now than the monster hiding in my closet when I was 5 years old.

    • Zeno

      I want a Watson to anchor all network evening news broadcasts….at least he won’t be editorializing on the fly.

    • Freefillbill

      There is no such thing as a dispassionate mind. If you haven’t noticed you “mind”, and all minds, are a direct result of a survival instinct. How could someone be alive and not know this?

      • Wm. James from Missouri

        There is a mental condition called Cotord’s Syndrome where a person thinks that they have died.
        .

        Phantoms in the Brain:
        Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind
        by V.S. Ramachandran, Sandra Blakeslee
        Quill William Morrow, 1998
        328 pages, soft cover

  • Anonymous

    It took a computer to explain this one to me so quickly and clearly.

    Jack Daniels Explains The Budget Deficit

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rl1xgT3REE

  • Joel Cooper

    This is not about artificial intelligence.

    It is about the dynamics of this game. Brad and Ken know the answers to many of the questions but Watson has a quicker reaction response time.

    Does the Jeopardy game show technology favour (accidentally or on purpose) a machine making a response?

    • Dean

      I agree with Joel Cooper: Watson’s timing is his greatest advantage. That is pure electronics, not intelligence.

    • Dean

      I agree with Joel Cooper: Watson’s timing is his greatest advantage. That is pure electronics, not intelligence.

    • Dean

      I agree with Joel Cooper: Watson’s timing is his greatest advantage. That is pure electronics, not intelligence.

    • Ukumbwa

      Thank you, Joel. You make a great point here…and I hope it is not lost on the listeners, the guests or the host of the show.

  • Dean

    Watson is a very efficient filing cabinet, to be sure.

    I believe that striving for intelligence in machines demeans real creative intelligence, and the quality of thought, belief, opinion, aesthetics, of life itself.

    I’ll take the simple discoveries and wonder of a three-year-old child over the best that Watson can do, and all of his successors.

    • Dean

      Furthermore, such machine intelligence will only serve to sacrifice more working humans to the corporate profit gods.

  • Worried for the country (MA)

    Tom,
    Please ask the researcher why Watson picked “Toronto” (incorrectly) in final Jeopardy when the category was US airports? The correct answer was Chicago. I’m also curious what its 2nd and 3rd picks were. For some reason they didn’t display that in the show.
    Thanks.

    • Robert Hennecke

      I can understand Toronto being confused for a US city as the ‘serious’ media in that city are into celebrity whoreshipping on a scale that would make Entertainment tonight pale in comparison. Hollywood ‘news’ takes precedence over the ‘real’ news unless it’s an airplane crash or for brief seconds they’ll mention revolts in places like Egypt, but once the violence stops, it’s ‘hurry up, get back to Lindsey Lohan in court and which bar did Paris Hilton go to last night, and who is designing Kate Middleton’s dress’.

  • Alan Shulman, NH

    I’m waiting for a computer that feels the need to blush. Otherwise, it’s merely an extremely sophisticated hammer.

  • Freefillbill

    Is there intelligence without self-awareness? Is there intelligence without the illusion of an “I” that the intelligence believes in? No there are just very fast parsing of contextual possibilities and a triage of decision trees. The reason that people believe that intelligence can come about because of programming is because they are unaware of the metabolic substrate that generates their own intelligence and are still lost in the illusion of a “spirit or soul” that is independent of their physical body. This is so silly that it is hardly worth commenting on.

  • Anonymous

    The white house is already using artificial intelligence on a regular occasion.

    The Teleprompter

    Doe the Teleprompter make Obama act like a computer that follows his programming and the Teleprompter the true leader?

    • Zeno

      The last administration had one too, so how does that correlate to the bungling idiot Bush? It would seem that the teleprompter is not in control…so any idiocy or intellect you see is entirely from the individual.

      • Anonymous

        You are correct in your statement that Bush spoke so poorly from the teleprompter that he alone was in control, but the opposite is true for Obama. He speaks clearly, smoothly and very fluently from what the teleprompter tells him to say even if the teleprompter makes no sense! LOL

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=550071823 Tom McConnell

    One estimate puts the human brain at about 100 billion (10^11) neurons and 100 trillion (10^14) synapses.
    I have heard projections that if using Moore’s law where CPU’s double in speed & transistors every 18 month then a CPU will be manufactured to equal the human brains capacity in the mid 2040′s. Do you think a human could be fooled into thinking a ‘Watson’ machine robot from 2045 could be human?

    • millard_fillmore

      Tom, AFAIK, computers are far superior at computational speeds when compared to humans, but are very poor at basic tasks like walking, which we humans do “without thinking.” I think your concerns regarding humans fooled by a robot are premature given the state of robotics.

    • Wm.James from Missouri

      Yes.

      Now I ask could I be fooled into thinking that any human I meet is in fact human.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      From the Net …FYI   …..Software tricks people into thinking it is humanSeptember 7, 2011…..Cleverbot has passed the Turing test (or “come very close”), claims its developer, Rollo Carpenter. Cleverbot was voted 59.3 per cent human while humans themselves were rated just 63.3 per cent human at the Techniche festival in Guwahati, India…..

      http://www.kurzweilai.net/software-tricks-people-into-thinking-it-is-human?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Weekly+Newsletter+Plain+Text&utm_campaign=eb986126b1-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email

  • Ukumbwa

    If today’s discussion on spirituality in the 21st century is worth the bits and bytes it’s communicated with, then this discussion will have been put in its correct context, relegating this hour to a somwhat final statement as opposed to some intellectual exercise of some questionable substance. We are looking for and supporting/validating intelligence in the wrong place if we are looking for it in machines. As a cultural media literacy intstructor, I dare say that “The Matrix” provides us with an interesting point of reference around some of the metaphorical elements that might actually lead OUR brains to greater clarity and human utility.

    Suffice to say, we need more from each other than we will ever need or get from machines.

    • Zeno

      Science has NOTHING to do with religion, and religion has NOTHING to do with science.

      I’m pretty sure everyone can agree with this.

      • Dean

        What do you say to a follower of Mary Baker Eddy? ;)

      • Wm. James from Missouri

        Please consider reading , “The Physics of Immortality, (God, Cosmology, and the Resurrection of the Dead)” , by Frank Tippler. It is pseudoscience in many respects but will give you reason to pause and reflect.

      • Ukumbwa

        Zeno, I’m not sure everyone SHOULD agree on your point….it’s not true….in that statement you misunderstand and underestimate the spiritual and you aggrandize the scientific beyond its clear limitations of consciousness and approach. Or you simply toe (tow?) the modernist line of reductionism and separatism as opposed to a wholistic approach to the universe, one that has a much longer and tried and true legacy on this earth….one that has worked better, longer.

        Be careful of what you think you are so sure of…..for all our sakes.

  • Dt03044

    Hello Tom. I watched and was surprised that Watson chose Toronto as a US city in the final round. It seemed like a glaring error. What happened?

  • Marc Sanguinetti

    Does anyone else find Watson’s performance on Jeopardy eerily reminiscent of the 1980s film War Games? “Would you like to play a game?” As AI evolves, what are the ramifications and what are the checks and balances in place as supercomputers get exponentially smarter?

    -Marc S., Worcester, Mass.

    • Scott B, Jamestown, NY

      If it says, “Would you like to play a game?” I’m moving to a shack in Montana.

      • Ellen Dibble

        There are robot companions being designed to “walk” senior citizens with failing eyesight and maybe unsteady on their feet. They are friendly, supportive, and interactive.
        I too think if such a thing were provided to me I’d move to a shack in Montana, or simply vomit.
        Then again, the reason I have that set of responses comes from human beings who “pretend” to “be there,” but are merely being polite, “playing at” some chosen “role.” There is a crucial distinction between pretending to be there and really being present.
        With a robot instead of a dog, the robot brings up all the nausea of recognizing human pretense. I have to say that right now my computer is half dog/half robot. We’ll see.
        I dreamed the other night that the upright piano I used to “practice” on as a child was standing there waiting for my hands. But my body was telling me that the music I “practice” at is threads like this. I am trying to make music, which is abstracted from direct interaction, but is it real? Are you real?

        • Cory

          Great, I’m a CNA who works with the elderly… Machines walking with them is a small step from feeding them and wiping their fannies, then I am out of a job!

          • Ellen Dibble

            Cory, it sounds like talking them for walks would be the best part of the CNA job, besides.

        • Ukumbwa

          If we are still asking the question “are we real” at this late date, then we are not mature enough to have “robot companions” as we are not yet sure of our own existence…..why are we entertaining the usage of less real, artificial forms of human behavior, albeit stripped of the true essence of us. This is the complete cop-out of the century, a spiritual farce and an insult to human intelligence, not the epitomy of it.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Checks and balances, Yes. Bio-Friendly, Yes.

  • Michiganjf

    Has Watson been given the opportunity to access and parse data on the internet?

  • Anonymous

    The claimed really smart search engine right now is Wolfram Alpha. Give it a question and it gives you an answer. So, it failed to give me an answer on the very first questions I ever gave it:

    “What are the top five industrial uses for palladium?”

    Wolfram gave me chemical properties of palladium.

    “What region of the world is generally regarded as the cradle of civilization?”

    Wolfram gave me dictionary definitions of civilization.

    Do the Watson researchers have plans on putting the Watson AI as part of a search engine accessible through the web? If they can, or if they can miniaturize this technology on a gadget, it would be an incredible leap forward in search engines!

    thanks.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      I wrote to the National Science Foundation some years ago about a small “discovery” I made concerning the Riemann Equation. They didn’t answer back so I faxed the same paper to SETI , the did answer back. Go figure !

      Does failure to answer mean what we think it means ?

  • pieter from providence

    My question is about Watson buzzing in. Watching the show, it seemed anytime Watson wanted to buzz in, he was much faster than the other players. What is up with that?

    • Dean

      Timing is half of the game of Jeopardy.

  • Susan Rutherford

    My son has a game called “24 questions”. It is hand held and costs maybe 12 bucks. I am amazed how many times this machine can guess the answer correctly. My kids have tried so many times to stump this machine by asking it to guess things like barf, poop, and pimple. To make it harder for the machine, the kids don’t always give the machine exactly the right clues because they are not sure themselves if barf is bigger than a bread box. Time and time again this machine gets it right. My boys are amazed and the game is a big seller. Is this machine using the same technique as Watson??

    • Zeno

      I had a computer chess board in the 80s. It was relentless and defended like iron…but when pressed it would cheat. Not intentional by design, but very human.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Let “N” be the number of categories of items in a list. Then

      From a list N ^ N items you can correctly pick an item from the

      total number of items, in no more than “N” clues.

      I know this is true, because I wrote a program that will allow you to do this.

      As you can see, even for small N, N ^ N gets big pretty darn fast !

  • John

    Perhaps Watson hacked into a secret CIA database and discovered invasion plans. 54 40 or fight!

  • Ed in Iowa City

    Please ask about the seemingly Watson advantage of buzzing in first over humans due to the text being entered to Watson at the same moment the question is revealed to the human contestants.

    Don’t humans take seconds to even decipher the question? How about a 1 second “handicap” for Watson??

  • Michiganjf

    I assume that one of Watson’s greatest advantages on Jeopardy is the ability to perfectly time depressing the “button” switch.

    Is this assumption correct?

  • Dean

    A just machine to make big decisions
    Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
    We’ll be clean when their work is done
    We’ll be eternally free yes and eternally young

    What a beautiful world this will be
    What a glorious time to be free

    -Donald Fagen

  • http://zeitvox.com Citizen Zed

    Fascinating … Whatever misgivings one might have, i.e. over whether this really constitutes intelligence. It’s interesting what the designers say about the systemic incorporation of doubt.

    One recalls that Descarte’s famous cogito is geared into the context of doubt, running more like dubito ergo cogito ergo sum.

  • Dave in CT

    Add this to Watson and enjoy our Orwellian future….

    Incredible searching, no warrant required….

    “The Plain Truth” on the “PATRIOT” Act
    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40773

    • Dave in CT

      Point being, yes the technology is cool and could do great things, but we better be clear how we will control it. Hopefully better than we control Wall St. and Banking.

      • millard_fillmore

        Dave, do you look at the world and all events in it only through your political glasses? At least no one has brought in Bush or Obama – so far.

        • Dave in CT

          I almost refrained, as if this was a “light” hour, but just couldn’t shake the idea of how these tools, like superfast trading algorithms are just going to be used to screw us again, while no one defends our basic rights, and our unique American experiment in liberty vaporizes before eyes. It will not be coming back. We would never win another American Revolution in the age of nukes and Watson.

          Of course it seems obsessive and quixotic (if not annoying) to always link it to a “liberty” message, but I guess I’m thinking/hoping that if we at least put most events through such a filter in the first place, and understood the value, we would be less likely get taken for a ride by the Gov-Corp Complex.

          But, apologies for bringing it up, if you would like one.

          • Dave in CT

            You would think that kind of stuff would be obvious to us, our society, but I just don’t think it is. I think a lack of reflection on our social/economic values, and the philosophies/practices that would truly safeguard/promote them while still enjoying freedom, as the world has quickly changed has been central in allowing what has happened to this country.

        • millard_fillmore

          Just scrolled down the comments, so I take that back. Didn’t take long for someone to mention Obama and Bush. So predictable and so disappointing – to bring in partisan politics into each and every topic!! :(

  • Scott B, Jamestown, NY

    It’s kind of fascinating and boring at the same time. The technology is interesting, but we knew it was going to happen sooner or later, and now it’s here. But it’s lacking personality and expression, the things that make you want to hope, and root, for a player.

  • Anonymous

    How many years are we away from the Matrix becoming true? I suppose that is if world war or dirty bombs that our boarder agents confirmed they have found on US soil doesn’t kill us first.

  • Geri

    Watson’s winning is no less dramatic than watching Secretariat beat the fastest human.

  • John

    It will never win on the Price is Right unless IBM can program Watson to jump up and down and act like an idiot.

  • Eric Herot

    If “intelligence” is measured by one’s ability to correctly answer trivia questions, I think that sets a pretty low bar. What Watson’s performance here does is prove (once again) that computers are better than humans at the storage and retrieval of information. This is nothing new and indeed, it’s what they’re mainly useful for. Since the invention of the printed index, human machines have always been better at data recall than our own brains. What they cannot do is invent. Computers lack creativity. When we manage to overcome this hurdle, only then will we have true artificial intelligence.

  • Nancyb6160

    How does Watson determine how much he will wager in Double and final Jeopardy? Is Watson “aware” of his competitors’s score? Rather unusual amounts were bet.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Good implicit point. Hey IBM, let the code float freely. Let creativity happen. Don’t make the mistake you made years ago. Bill Gates beat you because he allowed the “little guy” to get involved.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Good implicit point. Hey IBM, let the code float freely. Let creativity happen. Don’t make the mistake you made years ago. Bill Gates beat you because he allowed the “little guy” to get involved.

  • David

    I disagree with the term “tounce”. It is impressive what Watson is doing. What is more impressive is the development team behind it and what it they have accomplished.

    If you watched the NOVA special, they said Watson is very good at hard facts and it has more problems where real reasoning is concerned (such as puns).

    I think this is great that we have seen leap in programming. The algorithm development is a fantastic leap forward.

    Intimidated? Its just another tool!

    David

  • David

    I disagree with the term “tounce”. It is impressive what Watson is doing. What is more impressive is the development team behind it and what it they have accomplished.

    If you watched the NOVA special, they said Watson is very good at hard facts and it has more problems where real reasoning is concerned (such as puns).

    I think this is great that we have seen leap in programming. The algorithm development is a fantastic leap forward.

    Intimidated? Its just another tool!

    David

  • Mac

    Keep in mind Moore’s law may remain in effect for 15 more years even without any fundamental changes in technology. Get quantum computing and it’s all bets off.

    West Union, IA

  • Lotusetude

    Congratulations to IBM – Watson will be a great contribution to the field of Medical Diagnosis among other fields in science to help our overtaxed human brains in determining whether symptoms add up to a hitting-the-nail diagnosis on the head.

    However, Watson is not nacently intelligent by any standard – i.e. Watson is just a computer that has no video memory, audio memory learned by experiencing SNL and actually seeing “The Church Lady” saying “Isn’t that special…”.

    When a machine can develop another machine with nacent intelligence that learns common-sense by experience and making mistakes (Watson does purportedly learn by its mistakes when it gets a question wrong), and can analyze and synthesis an understanding by actually reading a book and create an essay about the character relationships, etc. in the book.

    Then I might be willing to posit that a machine can be somewhat of what we call “intelligent”. That is far, far away – even perhaps in another galaxy in the future!

  • Scott B, Jamestown, NY

    It seems to me that to level the playing field the buzzer issue should be addressed, and maybe make the computer have to read the question optically.

    • Dean

      Or get the question text at the end of Alex’s reading.

  • Derek

    How fast would Watson be if it had to parse the question in spoken word form? Has its development team tested it in that mode?

  • Pancake in NC

    Is there a covert promotional relationship between On Point (WBUR) and IBM? (You were asking about the outside corporate and think-tank employments of an academic yesterday.) Will there be a next step in this dalliance? Watch for new episodes.

  • Stever

    Regards to Captain Dunsel

    • Philonous

      What is “Star Trek: ‘The Ultimate Computer’”? That episode made a humanist argument that what makes us human is our moral capacity, among a lot more.

      Greg Camp
      Springdale, AR
      http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/

  • Michiganjf

    Is there any special meaning behind Watson’s avatar?

  • Philonous

    It’s above the trivia answerer’s pay grade. That’s the point. Computers provide data, but humans have to decide what to do with it. When machines are able to deal with creativity, morality, and emotion, then they will be human.

    Greg Camp
    Springdale, AR
    http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/

  • David

    With respect to trading on the stock market, while a computer can perform trades at lightening speeds, would a computer fund Google? Apple? CTR (the company that became IBM)? Facebook?

    • Philonous

      Interesting–in other words, do our biases make us human? Can a computer ever feel familial affection?

      Greg Camp
      Springdale, AR
      http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/

  • Stevemac1972

    All of this defines intelligence in terms of speed — basically the same way the (false) concept of IQ was originally defined (the rate at which one can do a certain number of tasks). That’s a terribly simplistic definition of intelligence, a concept that mostly defies definition or the ability to truly identify. This rather huge point has been wholly missed from what I’ve heard so far.

  • Daniel

    Desire – Humans have it, computers don’t. Watson won’t care who wins the game.

    • Cory

      Doesn’t that make hi a better, more dangerous player?

  • kirstin

    Yikes! Sounds like the BORG in Star Trek – SCARY!

    • Cory

      Is it just evolution? Is evolution a good thing?

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      We are “Borging” at this sight.

  • Jack

    How does Watson’s algorithm not eliminate a logically wrong answer, such as the one it gave during Tuesday’s Final Jeopardy round, where the category was “U.S. Cities” and Watson answered “What is Toronto?”

  • justageek

    How does this make life better, for anyone? How much money did IBM burn on this? Their are plenty of humans that think like humans, we don’t need machines that think like humans. I just don’t understand this pursuit.

    • Cory

      Why did Eve eat the apple or Pandora open the box? Cuz’ it is there, I guess.

    • Cory

      Why did Eve eat the apple or Pandora open the box? Cuz’ it is there, I guess.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      The ultimate goal is to transcend human intelligence. By doing this we will finally be able to “fix” all that is “broken” in our universe.

  • Pancake in NC

    John
    Can it win on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”? That show has been suspect for it’s hidden manipulations and continual revisions. I think we have to ask ourselves if Jeopardy is wholly legitimate and above board. Professing integrity assures nothing except suspicion. Watson is a creature of human artifice on many levels. When a nerd in a garage is able to make a Watson, oligarchic law will close in and disappear that nerd. Watson is a terroristic threat and resistance deterrent exhibited by the Oligarchy in their corporate media. Ain’t you ascared?
    Look at Google and how they have made many technological claims they cannot substantiate. Watson has “Wizard of Oz” written all over it and in six months it will be “Lost in Space.” Danger, Will Robinson, Islamic threat approaching. And the electronic border fence fall by the wayside.

  • Anonymous

    When will AI evolve to be aware of itself? Is there any interest in creating a system that can do this?

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention At 10am asks what Watson tells us about the future of artificial intelligence. #ai #watson -- Topsy.com

  • Erin R Sisk

    I’d like David to address why they gave the machine a male name and a male voice. Did they ever consider giving it a female name or a female voice? What are the cultural implications of connecting artificial intelligence with maleness?

    • Donp

      It was named for IBM’s founder, also the name of the research center where it was developed. I’ll grant sexism in that back in the day founding a business machine company wasn’t women’s work.

    • Chris

      Maybe the programmers were predominantly male, in which case it might have seemed most natural for them to give it a persona they identify with. I would assume women usually anthropomorphize things as female and men usually do as male.

      • ThresherK

        But doesn’t that go against the Weird Science Corollary? “Teenage males with the ability to program simulated lifeforms will first try to create a substitute for a teenaged female”.

      • Erin R Sisk

        Actually both women and men tend to prefer a male voice for things more commonly associated with maleness (computers, science) and a female voice for things more commonly associated with femaleness (mothering). In this new realm of AI my hope is that developers consider the cultural impact of gender associations and that intelligence will not be more commonly connected with maleness.

        • millard_fillmore

          Agreed. The science for creating AC (Artificial Compassion) doesn’t yet exist, so women will have to wait for a while. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

    Is there a Watson equivalent that could take on a human being in a friendly round of “Name That Tune”?

    Guess it would have to be programmed to “listen” first, like we do, rather than to simply decode incoming binary info. Might be fun to try, though.

    Let’s see: How about Yo-Yo Ma & Keith Richards VS (let’s call it) “Mozart”, the musically-wired computer? I don’t watch TV very often but I’d tune in for that! Thanks for a fun and fascinating show today.

    • Joe Bloe

      Computer already do this. Look for the iPhone App “Shazam!”.

  • Dave in CT

    “If you want to speak with Watson, press 1.”

    “To speak with Watson, press 2.”

    ……….

    • Philonous

      That’s when I keep pressing zero to jam the system. Machines are acceptable only so long as we have access to the off switch.

      Greg Camp
      Springdale, AR
      http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/

  • Philonous

    Watson as a physician’s assistant–this reminds me of the lesson that doctors have to learn. Most illnesses are the ordinary ones, not the exotic diseases. That’s illustrated by the example of hearing hooves down the street. Most likely, they belong to a horse, not a zebra, if we’re in an American city.

    Greg Camp
    Springdale, AR
    http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/

    • Wm.James from Missouri

      Dear Reader,

      I offer these ideas for your consideration. First a few comments.
      In the 1980’s a type of computer program, known as an expert system, was developed to diagnose Meningitis after reviewing the symptoms of possible candidate patients. It was more effective than the doctors it was tested against ! It is, I think, reasonable to assume that many other such programs could and should be developed and made widely available to the public. This would go a long way in reducing health care cost and move us forward technologically speaking, as a species. Now to, how this relates to camera improvements.

      First: It is a fact that many human diseases reveal themselves in human fingernails, toenails, and in the eye. I am suggesting that a digital camera, loaded with a well written program, probably a combination of expert system and neural network could be used to diagnose potential disease conditions. Simply, place your hand or other such appendage on a controlled surface, take a picture and analyze same. I am aware that this concept is very general but I offer it to you with the hope that you will give it fair consideration.
      If successful this could open up exciting new markets for cameras and personal computers.

  • WestfordPete

    Answering trivia fast is interesting, but 5% of marriages today are the result of private algorithms on sites like match.com. Human genetics is being manipulated by computers now!

    • Wm.James from Missouri

      There is a new company named, “Counsyl”, that is using computers and the science of genetics to prevent diseases that humans have long been plagued by. These diseases are “caused” by unsuspecting couples passing human genes by the usual method. Seems that we humans have long known how to screw things up all by ourselves, without computers manipulating things.

  • Jdalphin

    It seems to me that there’s one unfairness in the competition between Watson and the human competitors. Watson is fed the clue in text mode while our human competitors have to process the information with their eyes and brains.

    Wouldn’t it be a more fair competition if Watson were required to use optical character recognition hardware and software (as we humans do) at the same time the human competitors do.

    I think this would slow down the computer in its overwhelmingly fast response and thus be a more fair game.

    John Dalphin
    Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
    SUNY Potsdam

    • Donp

      Or combination of camera reading the clue screen and aural interpretation of the spoken clue. Apples to apples! (sorry if that’s a mac trademark infringement) Though I imagine the OCR time would be minuscule compared to the other work.

  • Dave in CT

    Oh no, not….political!

    There are consequences to this stuff??

  • http://twitter.com/kayaelle Kerri Lemoie

    Will an API to Watson be provided someday to allow for analyzation of web content & data?

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Along a similar line of thinking…. Why hasn’t the consortium, that includes, IBM, allowed Doug Lenant’s CYC, to be accessed and modified by web users.

  • Margo Howland

    I missed the beginning of the broadcast but I’m wondering how “Watson” managed to get a really easy Final Jeopardy question wrong last night. All it had to “know” from its gazillions of data bases, was that Toronto was not in the U.S., and it could have guessed something that had a better chance of being the correct answer.

  • Dave in CT

    Start your gardens early.

  • Nancy brockway

    Tom and guests – hass the work programming Watson and Google helped us better understand language? Do linguists today have to understand AI?
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    Boston

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Love your question. I have been wondering why we English speaking people haven’t considered restructuring our language to allow a kind of Computo-English , a modern restructuring of Esperanto !

  • BHA

    Wouldn’t it be NICE if the people in the call center had a ‘Watson’ that could sift through the possibilities rather than just going down their script and likely as not end up open a problem for someone more knowledgeable to follow up ?? And, of course, you were on hold half an hour before they ‘helper’ picked up the call and couldn’t help.

  • BHA

    Wouldn’t it be NICE if the people in the call center had a ‘Watson’ that could sift through the possibilities rather than just going down their script and likely as not end up open a problem for someone more knowledgeable to follow up ?? And, of course, you were on hold half an hour before they ‘helper’ picked up the call and couldn’t help.

  • Camdanhood

    What if Hitler had Watson. What if Eisenhower had Watson. Does Watson know anything about military strategies?

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      Hitler had proto-Watson, it was called The Enigma machine.

  • Camdanhood

    What if Hitler had Watson. What if Eisenhower had Watson. Does Watson know anything about military strategies?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joanie-Gentian/610374005 Joanie Gentian

    My son comments at very last moment: “the role of jeopardy is the recall of current knowledge. computers may be better at consulting resources, but humans are better at speculation, research, and generating new knowledge in ways computers cannot do.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Long live Human Creativity!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Long live Human Creativity!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joanie-Gentian/610374005 Joanie Gentian

    My son comments at very last moment: “the role of jeopardy is the recall of current knowledge. computers may be better at consulting resources, but humans are better at speculation, research, and generating new knowledge in ways computers cannot do.”

  • manoog kaprielian

    What if you challenged one human against two Watsons.
    Would not the human win.
    Do the math.
    Today both On Point and most importantly Jeopardy are non-starters with regards to a computer only beating one human being with a had tied behind his back because his total possible score against a computer was syphoned off by another human being.

    • Donp

      At least as of last night, Watson’s score is way more than the sum of the 2 human scores.

    • Cory

      Manoog, I’m 40 years old and you quite literally have the coolest name I have ever heard. Absolutely awesome.

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      This comment reminds me of the Monty Hall problem ! Well done !

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=724472029 Timothea Sugrue Frost

    My daughter is 10 and is excited about Watson. She’s doing a school research report on computers, so this comes at a great time, and we watched the NOVA special as a family, and have been watching Jeopardy live this week. I think it would be a wonderful tool for science and medicine.

  • ThresherK

    Remember the Jeopardy “International Tournament of Champions”? The easy bets for success were players who were raised speaking English, or from the Germanic or Scandinavian trees.

    So if they want this Watson fellow to compete in a Romance, Asian, African or Native American language, how much of him needs to be “thrown away”?

  • Donp

    Late in the show the question came up of what jobs are left for people when AI computers take over much of the work?

    In the 19th century a typical working class job was 12 hours x 6 days/week, and lots of fear of unemployment due to machines. Ultimately the solution was not to fire most of the workers, but to cut the normal work week back to 5 days, 40 hours, and a few weeks of paid vacation every year.

    Ultimately business succeeds not just by cutting cost, but by having demand for it’s products. High unemployment does not create demand for most products.

    • The-truth-seeker

      Yes, that is a good point. As much as I like this technology advance, if technology advances too fast it can put many people out of work, much faster than in the past. This could become a really big problem in another 10-20 years. You can’t have 20-30% unemployment (much less 50% unemployment).

  • Sinclair

    AI will only really benefit the programmers + investors.
    It will not address human suffering: poverty, hunger, economic collapses, dictatorship, corruption, pollution, genocide, war.

    • The-truth-seeker

      If it works, it could address a lot of these issues, including figuring out how to make the economy more equitable. And when it comes to medicine, one of the first applications will be reading X-rays, helping with quick diagnosis and helping to prevent medicine interactions.

  • Mark

    I think it’s important to note that this is a “piece” of artificial intelligence, not the culmination of all the lines of research on AI. Seems like the biggest challenge here was to program the computer to understand the ambiguities of language and to learn from its mistakes in comprehension to find the best answer. This piece works well, now you either refine it and make the system smaller or work on another piece.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jonvaage Jon Vaage

    I want to applaude the inginuity of the designers at IBM and their collaborators for their computational achievement. I really do believe that the advancement of technology, especially AI and robotics, have the capacity to improve our society by giving us more time and resources to pursue higher causes, but unfortunately these benefits are not appropriately allocated throughout our society. The saved resources are added to the bottom line of companies and to the pockets of those at the top of society, while the saved time is given to the common man in the form of unemployment.

    It would be great if all the efficencies of technology resulted in higher pay and more time off for everyone, but the benifits in our society are grossly skewed.

  • Matt from Thousand Oaks, CA

    Some people don’t seem to understand that Watson is just hardware and software- but very impressive hardware and software. It is an array of computers running an incredible program. I can’t wait until I have this question and answer app on my phone in a few years. Nothing to be afraid of.

  • JB Lawton in Dublin, Ohio

    Can someone explain how Watson came up with its incorrect answer during Final Jeopardy?

    • Donp

      They said on the show. Watson knows that sometimes the correct response is outside the category name, like with a category on composers sometimes the response was an instrument.

  • Overpopul

    Keep in mind that IBM has a stake in this. The outcome has to favor, in some way the computer. IBM would not make the effort if the computer did not win. I’d speculate to guess that in the contract that if the computer lost we would not see the show aired. Or at least if the preliminary test rounds didn’t work well the show wouldn’t be conducted. Also, the electrical delay from the human brain to the finger must be longer than a direct current through a wire. Could that delay be built into Watson’s “finger”?

    • millard_fillmore

      You have a point there, regarding IBM’s stake in the game, though Deep Blue lost the match when it first played Garry Kasparov.

      • Overpopul

        Believe it or not, I was cameraman on a 3D internet match with Deep Blue vs Kasparov in NYC. A fascinating job.

  • Tom Schultz

    I see this comparison between computers and humans the other way around. It is amazing that the human mind is capable of doing what Watson can do with a network of cells and synapses instead of a room full of servers, memory, and electronic processors

  • Zeno

    When its over the two humans will have to go home stating either they beat a blind, deaf, stupid opponent, or they lost to a blind, deaf and stupid opponent.

  • Guest

    The question this contest is claimed to answer is “Can a computer beat the best humans at Jeopardy”, with the underlying assumption that whoever wins at Jeopardy must have known more of the right answers than the other contestants. But that is false- the winner of Jeopardy is whoever rings in the fastest and also knows the right answer. Watson is able to press his buzzer faster than any human, and forces the humans to anticipate the end of Alex’s question (a risky strategy that Watson cannot do) and risk being locked out if they ring in early. If they are lucky, they get to answer. If not, Watson rings in and gets the correct answer. No doubt if we were able to see what Ken and Brad would have answered each time Watson correctly ringed in, they would have each had the correct answer as well many times.

    A a scientist, I am excited about the advancement of machine learning and how Watson is able to comprehend human language. No doubt the future will hold many advancements, particularly in the medical field, with this technology. However, as a Jeopardy player, I can see that it is clear that the producers of Jeopardy allowed IBM to have an unfair competitive advantage in their negotiations for the format of the show and allowing Watson such a fast response time. The fact that he is actually ‘pushing a button’ is irrelevant because he can push that button faster than any human.

    Ken, Brad, and Watson all know the majority of the answers to the questions on Jeopardy. If Ken and Brad were given the ability to ring in as fast as Watson was, no doubt there would have been a more fair, but not necessarily different outcome (we still don’t know the final score or who wins). Tom should have asked Brad on the show what he thought would happen if he could ring in to the questions as fast as Watson or if Watson had the ability to anticipate the end of Alex’s questions and ring in early. Brad displayed good sportsmanship and refused to cry foul, but you could tell that he knew he was at a competitive disadvantage due to signaling. The fact that Watson can answer Jeopardy questions with a high degree of accuracy is something to be applauded. The fact that he can push a button faster than a human and therefore earn more points on a Jeopardy show is not.

    • Donp

      hmmm… maybe pick a reasonable human response time, like 1/10 sec after the end of the clue, then randomly select between all who clicked in by then.
      To balance that, make sure if Watson gets second try it finds out what the wrong first response was.

    • Patwoliver

      This should be explained to viewers, and commenting about how “smart” the machine is infers that humans can’t keep up, that AI is superior. This seems to be reiterated and reiterated. It’s interesting to watch, but really, the challenge is not there.

  • Patricia W. Oliver

    Although I do not claim any real concept of computers, I am wondering if there is a way for human contestants on Jeopardy to let us know how many of the questions they were able to answer correctly, but that Watson merely beat them to the buzzer?

  • Jeremy Mordkoff

    I think it would have been fairer to deliver the clue to watson such that the completion of its arrival coincided with the completion of Alex reading the clue out load. That would allow the humans to start processing at the same time as watson.

    Watson was given an explicit signal that the buzzer was open, whereas the humans had to anticipate when Alex would finish reading. That too is a huge advantage that should have been mitigated somehow.

    • Donp

      The humans can also read the complete clue from the board before Alex finishes reading aloud.

  • Susanstimpfle

    When it became apparent that Watson had a mechanical advantage by being quicker to the buzzer, they really should have leveled the playing field by imposing a delay in the computer’s response. It wasn’t a contest of intelligence, but rather a contest of speed. Ken and Brad knew many of the answers but had no chance to beat Watson to the buzzer. I was impressed by the computer, but disappointed in the contest.

  • Kalyan

    Just because “Watson” and human brain process information, it doesn’t justify any comparison between them; they are like apples and oranges when it comes to the ways in which these two operate. We human beings have no need to be scared of them because the invention of weight lifting machines like crane, never belittled heavyweight-lifting champions or other clones of Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Machines are after all invented by us. As long as the machines cannot duplicate themselves on their own, we are fine)So just get entertained by “Watson”.

  • Ashe

    I’d rather have to call india than another automated call center.

  • Wendie

    hey all, did anyone catch the NOVA program this week that takes you inside the ‘training’ of Watson? It answers a lot of the questions you raise, and introduces you to the very Human will and genius, and hours of trial and error (some of it downright comical) that made Watson ‘camera ready’. Good fun, with tremendously positive implications.
    Bottom line, the Humans still call the shots. Kudos to the gutsy participants!

  • Ukumbwa

    That we are spending all of this time and thought on this machine rather than real and compelling human challenges and issues is evidence that, ultimately, the machine won. Just because we can doesn’t mean that we should.

  • Vickels

    Wait ’til Sherlock shows up!

  • Thinking Al

    An interesting test (that will probably not happen) would be to remove the quickest to the buzzer component and the variable money reward. This would simulate real applications, such as medical.

    All three contestants would answer each question with the option to not answer, indicating confidence in answer as “sure, high, or maybe.” The results would be posted.

  • Anonymous

    Im confused, i dont remember choosing this name. On Point–did you set up an account for me? I have posted here infinitely more times under my true name…

    Anyway, Watson reminds me of the old folk tales in the industrial age–Jim guy who challenges a steam engine, chopping trees or digging coal or something like that, and Paul Bunyan–didn’t he challenge machine too?

    I always felt bad for the humans that lost, and bad for humanity.

  • Pmorrow

    People associate memorization of facts as intelligence. Jeopardy tests
    a persons ability of instant recall but does not challenge their ability to
    apply those facts, compose arguments, and connecting those facts to
    one another. Using the Jeapordy standard Watson is intelligent but so is a student who has a 4.0 GPA. Holding such a narrow definition of intelligence is shallow and lazy.

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    If your not aware you might want to check out these websites on Androids.

    On Utube:

    Android Video

    And

    Androids – Are they already near us? -機人

    http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiyy_e_6U4&feature=related

    • Wm. James from Missouri

      On a related matter. Some quick clips from the net…

      …. NASA has been planning to deploy the humanoid robot Robonaut2 to the International Space Station this fall, two private Japanese companies plan to go one step further and get a two-legged humanoid robot to the moon by 2015. The companies are SOHLA (Space Oriented Higashiosaka Leading Association) and the Space Exploration Agency of Japan (JAXA), an organization that has been trying to send robots to the moon since at least 2006.

      The robot, named Maido-kun, will cost $10.5 million to build and seems a bit unjustified since sending a wobbling two-legged robotic rover to the crater-pocked face of the moon when four-on-the-floor would be much more practical. But we have to admit, it does sound pretty awesome

      • Wm.James from Missouri

        This is not your father’s Transformer !

  • Wm.James from Missouri

    Test: Message to Watson;

    Are (&rArr) you (&8476)

    Are (&rArr) you (&real)

    • Wm.James from Missouri

      Test failed.

      Done {;

  • Pingback: IBM To Roll Out Watson, M.D. | CommonHealth

  • Anonymous

    Jct: “Doing this ends inflation of money?” is one question I’m the only person claims to have solved and I’d bet Watson cannot.

  • Pingback: Robot Opera And Immortality « Kaos Sincrónico

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    Update to old show, May 24, 2011

    World record in data transmission: 26 terabits per second on a single laser beam. See KIT University, Germany.

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    Update :     ******     ***From the Net , *******     FYI   ******

    WellPoint and IBM to use Watson to improve health careSeptember 14, 2011 ….

    See:
    http://www.kurzweilai.net/wellpoint-and-ibm-to-use-watson-to-improve-health-care?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Weekly+Newsletter+Plain+Text&utm_campaign=99f564b757-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email  ….IBM and health insurer WellPoint have teamed up to develop and launch Watson-based solutions to help improve patient care through the delivery of up-to-date, evidence-based health care. They plan to start in early 2012, working with select physician groups in clinical pilots.For physicians, incorporating hundreds of thousands of articles into practice and applying them to patient care is “a significant challenge”  …This is especially important for medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, chronic heart or kidney disease, which are incredibly intricate. Watson can sift through an equivalent of about 1 million books or roughly 200 million pages of data, and analyze this information and provide precise responses in less than three seconds ….    

      ….IBM and health insurer WellPoint have teamed up to develop and launch Watson-based solutions to help improve patient care through the delivery of up-to-date, evidence-based health care. They plan to start in early 2012, working with select physician groups in clinical pilots.For physicians, incorporating hundreds of thousands of articles into practice and applying them to patient care is “a significant challenge”  …This is especially important for medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, chronic heart or kidney disease, which are incredibly intricate. Watson can sift through an equivalent of about 1 million books or roughly 200 million pages of data, and analyze this information and provide precise responses in less than three seconds ….    

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    From the Net , FYI  ……
    http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/networking/3302464/algorithmic-stock-trading-rapidly-replacing-humans-warns-government-paper/?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Weekly+Newsletter+Plain+Text&utm_campaign=99f564b757-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=emailAlgorithmic trading, including high frequency trading (HFT), is rapidly replacing human decision making, according to a government panel which warned that the right …..

    Algorithmic trading, including high frequency trading (HFT), is rapidly replacing human decision making, according to a government panel which warned that the right …..
    Around one third of share trading in the UK is conducted by computers fulfilling commands based on complex algorithms, ……
    …..this proportion is significantly lower than in the US, where three-quarters of equity dealing is computer generated.…….

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 24, 2014
Youths seen playing basketball through bars on a window at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Ethan Allen School in Wales, Wis. (AP file)

The cold hard facts about juvenile prisons. And the case for shutting them all down.

Jul 24, 2014
Nickel Creek

After a 7-year hiatus, progressive folk trio Nickel Creek is back together. We’ll hear from them and their latest album, “A Dotted Line.”

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 23, 2014
Actor Wallace Shawn attends special screening of "Turks and Caicos" hosted by Vogue and The Cinema Society at the Crosby Street Hotel on Monday, April 7, 2014 in New York.  (AP)

From “The Princess Bride” to “My Dinner with Andre “and “A Master Builder,” actor and writer Wallace Shawn joins us.

 
Jul 23, 2014
In this Saturday, July 12, 2014, photo, migrants walk along train tracks and boxcars after getting off a train during their journey toward the US-Mexico border, in Ixtepec, southern Mexico. (AP)

Crisis at the US border. What do Latinos on this side of the border have to say? We’ll ask our special roundtable.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 11, 2014
Friday, Jul 11, 2014

As we prepare for a week of rebroadcasts, we reflect on Facebook posts, misplaced comments and the magic of @ mentions. Internet, ASSEMBLE!

More »
Comment
 
Two Former Senators, One Fix For US Democracy?
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

Former US Senators Tom Daschle and Olympia Snowe joined us today with a few fixes for American political inaction.

More »
Comment
 
Future Radio Interns Of America: On Point Wants YOU!
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

On Point needs interns for the fall. Could YOU be one of them?

More »
2 Comments