Watson / Jeopardy 'robot', whats so cool?

[Joe]

In article <bs8pl6te2q8e6efujsomac5qjnorljgdvl@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:22:29 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

It looks like you just want to tag one irrelevant comment onto another.

That figures. You're incapable of putting two thoughts together.

Seems to me that you're just another usenet blubbering old fart.

I suppose it might look that way to a dumbass kid who really cares about
Charlie Sheen, of all losers.

Here's a thought: You sure seem to care that Charlie's a loser.

Here's another thought: Charlie Sheen might be a loser. I don't care.

Here's yet another(!) thought: I don't give a rodent's arse what you
care about. Now go to your room and leave the attendant's computer
alone!

Piss off.

After you kid (but you just can't resist the last word, can you?).

Your stimulating convo just brings out the intellectual in me.

--- Joe

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:57:18 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <bs8pl6te2q8e6efujsomac5qjnorljgdvl@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:22:29 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

It looks like you just want to tag one irrelevant comment onto another.

That figures. You're incapable of putting two thoughts together.

Seems to me that you're just another usenet blubbering old fart.

I suppose it might look that way to a dumbass kid who really cares about
Charlie Sheen, of all losers.

Here's a thought: You sure seem to care that Charlie's a loser.

Dingbat, you're the one who brought him into the conversation.

Here's another thought: Charlie Sheen might be a loser. I don't care.

I you're lying.

Here's yet another(!) thought: I don't give a rodent's arse what you
care about. Now go to your room and leave the attendant's computer
alone!

You care enough that you can't leave it alone. You *have* to get the last
word in.

Piss off.

After you kid (but you just can't resist the last word, can you?).

Your stimulating convo just brings out the intellectual in me.

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

 

[Joe]

In article <q5bpl6tgpkm2ucjhlhgl8u3l18a8d56a3j@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

I totally agree with you about depth. Your depth is so great, I have to
put on boots to wade through your verbiage.

Now, back to you, BOF.

--- Joe

 

[casey]

On Feb 16, 5:39 pm, 1jam <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..
I don't get it. What exactly was the point of this
demonstration?

To show how clever they have become with expert systems?

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines
I've ever heard. And the speech recognition worked very
well (assuming it is using one..?).


But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just
rig it up to google or wolfram alpha.. how can it lose???
Google can answer in milliseconds. While a human is still
listening to the questions.

[...]

I'm assuming it has many encyclopedia's of knowledge
available. How can it lose? This is nothing like playing
chess masters.

I suspect it demonstrates a lot of clever algorithms at
work under the hood even if it does rely on brute search
the way Deep Blue did. I suspect it is a long way from
being able to hold a normal conversation. We must always
be careful of the Eliza effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect

JC

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:14:52 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <q5bpl6tgpkm2ucjhlhgl8u3l18a8d56a3j@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

I totally agree with you about depth. Your depth is so great, I have to
put on boots to wade through your verbiage.

Which simply proves that you really are shallow enough to drown a snail.

Now, back to you, BOF.

You really should have that compulsion to have the last word checked by a
professional. It is a sickness.

 

[Paul F. Grayson]

As it turns out, no one had done it before. Processing the 1/2 to 2/3 of
the worlds knowledge that is not in data bases is the challenge. Details
are in the YouTube Videos available.

--

GO ROBOTS !

Paul F. Grayson - 4-H Leader
4-H Robotics Club of Traverse City
"Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math fun"
390 4-Mile Rd. S.
Traverse City, MI 49696
(231) 883-4463 Cell
pgrayson@aimagic.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TCrobotics4-hclub
http://www.controleng.com/blogs/aiming-for-automated-vehicles
http://wshrobotics.com


"1jam" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ijfrea$jh4$1@news.mixmin.net...

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines I've ever heard. And
the speech recognition worked very well (assuming it is using one..?).

But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just rig it up to google
or
wolfram alpha.. how can it lose??? Google can answer in milliseconds.
While
a human is still listening to the questions.

I'm sure it took some talented comp.sci thinkers to streamline the thing
and
get it thru a taping of a tv show without a hitch. Natural language
processing is an interesting area of research, though I don't know to what
degree it is even doing much of that..

But still.. I'm assuming it has many encyclopedia's of knowledge
available.
How can it lose? This is nothing like playing chess masters.

 

[Joe]

In article <gm5ql6tekl85qfi3n3cmuca164qn6cbbg2@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:14:52 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <q5bpl6tgpkm2ucjhlhgl8u3l18a8d56a3j@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

I totally agree with you about depth. Your depth is so great, I have to
put on boots to wade through your verbiage.

Which simply proves that you really are shallow enough to drown a snail.

Now, back to you, BOF.

You really should have that compulsion to have the last word checked by a
professional. It is a sickness.

Wow, even deeper! I have to admire your sense of self-righteousness,
you silly BOF!

Back atcha, Senor!

--- Jose

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:07:56 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <gm5ql6tekl85qfi3n3cmuca164qn6cbbg2@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:14:52 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <q5bpl6tgpkm2ucjhlhgl8u3l18a8d56a3j@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

I totally agree with you about depth. Your depth is so great, I have to
put on boots to wade through your verbiage.

Which simply proves that you really are shallow enough to drown a snail.

Now, back to you, BOF.

You really should have that compulsion to have the last word checked by a
professional. It is a sickness.

Wow, even deeper! I have to admire your sense of self-righteousness,
you silly BOF!

Simply right, imbecile. You really do need a shrink.

>Back atcha, Senor!

 

[Joe]

In article <5cerl6h3asmc5p5g7oc6hfdrj0bsjooh86@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:07:56 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <gm5ql6tekl85qfi3n3cmuca164qn6cbbg2@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:14:52 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <q5bpl6tgpkm2ucjhlhgl8u3l18a8d56a3j@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

I totally agree with you about depth. Your depth is so great, I have to
put on boots to wade through your verbiage.

Which simply proves that you really are shallow enough to drown a snail.

Now, back to you, BOF.

You really should have that compulsion to have the last word checked by a
professional. It is a sickness.

Wow, even deeper! I have to admire your sense of self-righteousness,
you silly BOF!

Simply right, imbecile. You really do need a shrink.

Back atcha, Senor!

I see that you still want to play, Gospodin, but I must be a little
slower in batting it back to you, because I have a few more important
things to do than to keep you from having the last word, doofuss-amigo!


Incredibly recursive (or is it *inductive*?) of you, you know, that in
order to chide me for doing something, you are ipso facto doing the very
same thing!

Whatta hoot!

--- Joe

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:11:50 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <5cerl6h3asmc5p5g7oc6hfdrj0bsjooh86@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:07:56 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <gm5ql6tekl85qfi3n3cmuca164qn6cbbg2@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:14:52 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <q5bpl6tgpkm2ucjhlhgl8u3l18a8d56a3j@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

I totally agree with you about depth. Your depth is so great, I have to
put on boots to wade through your verbiage.

Which simply proves that you really are shallow enough to drown a snail.

Now, back to you, BOF.

You really should have that compulsion to have the last word checked by a
professional. It is a sickness.

Wow, even deeper! I have to admire your sense of self-righteousness,
you silly BOF!

Simply right, imbecile. You really do need a shrink.

Back atcha, Senor!

I see that you still want to play, Gospodin, but I must be a little
slower in batting it back to you, because I have a few more important
things to do than to keep you from having the last word, doofuss-amigo!

That's certainly not all you're slow at. I'm sure you are really an impotent
person.

Incredibly recursive (or is it *inductive*?) of you, you know, that in
order to chide me for doing something, you are ipso facto doing the very
same thing!

No, dingbat. I gave you a chance to bow out, which any sane person would have
taken. I'm now showing exactly how insane you really are, Hosie.

 

[Joe]

In article <f4lrl6tom6ucnavjaa4vpsmvgekbu83nh3@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:11:50 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <5cerl6h3asmc5p5g7oc6hfdrj0bsjooh86@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:07:56 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <gm5ql6tekl85qfi3n3cmuca164qn6cbbg2@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:14:52 -0800, Joe <none@given.now> wrote:

In article <q5bpl6tgpkm2ucjhlhgl8u3l18a8d56a3j@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

I see I wasn't wrong about your depth.

I totally agree with you about depth. Your depth is so great, I have
to
put on boots to wade through your verbiage.

Which simply proves that you really are shallow enough to drown a
snail.

Now, back to you, BOF.

You really should have that compulsion to have the last word checked by
a
professional. It is a sickness.

Wow, even deeper! I have to admire your sense of self-righteousness,
you silly BOF!

Simply right, imbecile. You really do need a shrink.

Back atcha, Senor!

I see that you still want to play, Gospodin, but I must be a little
slower in batting it back to you, because I have a few more important
things to do than to keep you from having the last word, doofuss-amigo!


That's certainly not all you're slow at. I'm sure you are really an impotent
person.

Incredibly recursive (or is it *inductive*?) of you, you know, that in
order to chide me for doing something, you are ipso facto doing the very
same thing!

No, dingbat. I gave you a chance to bow out, which any sane person would
have
taken. I'm now showing exactly how insane you really are, Hosie.

HAHAHAHAH, Senor Hosie to you, Doofuss.

 

[Manuel Rodriguez]

On 16 Feb., 07:39, 1jam <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

Did anyone see the IBM computer playing Jeopardy..I don't get it. What
exactly was the point of this demonstration?

Sure it has one of the better text to speech engines I've ever heard. And
the speech recognition worked very well (assuming it is using one..?).

But as far as answering trivia questions goes... just rig it up to google or
wolfram alpha.. how can it lose??? Google can answer in milliseconds. While
a human is still listening to the questions.

I'm sure it took some talented comp.sci thinkers to streamline the thing and
get it thru a taping of a tv show without a hitch. Natural language
processing is an interesting area of research, though I don't know to what
degree it is even doing much of that..

But still.. I'm assuming it has many encyclopedia's of knowledge available.
How can it lose? This is nothing like playing chess masters.

At first we have to define that Jeopardy is a gambling game like
roulette or horse-betting. The chance to find the correct answer is
1:100000 (100000 is the number of words in English language).
According to pure statistics, the chance to win is very very small.
That Watson did win can only be explained by cheating. Yes, Watson
cheats the game to be better than randomness. He played unfair to its
opponents in using additional information to better than pure
randomness. It is the same strategy which is called "watching inside
the roulette-table" (Kesselgucken on german).

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:07:56 -0600, "Shaun" <rowl@nomail.com> wrote:

What were you doing?.... too buzy jerking off!

---
Geez, only your second post to seb and, single-handedly, you've
already branded yourself as an idiotic, combative asshole.

Congratulations!

Must be a record of some kind for a 12-year-old.

---
JF