Watson wasn't always this adept:
It botched the solutions to the game-show clues with howlers that filled  IBM's research lab with laughter — and raised deep concern. Once, when  queried about a famous French bacteriologist, Watson skipped right past  Louis Pasteur and responded instead: "What is, 'How tasty was my little  Frenchman?'" (the title of a 1971Brazilian movie about cannibals). Even  worse, Watson churned away for nearly two hours to come up with such  nonsense. 
However, Watson's "intelligence" is artificial in more ways than one. Like 
a chatterbot, a clueless politician or 
the inmate of Searle's Chinese Room, it creates output appropriate to its input by associating between symbols without any understanding of their referents, and cannot deal with questions that require more subtle interpretation:
When it comes up with an answer,  such as "What is 'Othello?,'" the name of Shakespeare's play is simply  the combination of ones and zeros that correlates with millions of  calculations it has carried out. Statistics tell it that there is a high  probability that the word "Othello" matches with a "tragedy," a  "captain" and a "Moor." But Watson doesn't understand the meaning of  those words any more than Google does, or, for that matter, a parrot  raised in a household of Elizabethan scholars...
This clue, for example, ties Watson into knots: "Look in this direction  and you'll see the wainscoting." The answer is rooted in human  experience, not data. Only a "Jeopardy!" contestant with a body is  likely to understand it and come up with the right response: "What is  down?"
 
No comments:
Post a Comment