Deep QA (aka, Watson) architecture diagram... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=219009061454431&set=a.217364258285578.55073.203359906352680&type=3&theater
Cheers, ~PM ------------------ > Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 22:32:31 -0700 > Subject: Re: [agi] Watson video > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Interesting. I would like to know a little more about the guts of > Watson. It seems like they've linked up some usually disparate > paradigms. It does look like as they go from application to > application domain they need to do some considerable fine tuning, and > they claim this help-center is easier than the medical field, which is > no wonder.... > > As we enter an age when some systems are getting close to flirting > with real strong AI, I just feel like we should watch out for people > dropping phrases like "the computer understands....". I mean, a > computer has always "understood" something. Even the lowly calculator > understands "+", for example. It comes down to how far along the > scale of understanding (which I don't think has ever been completely > defined anyway) the system in question really is. Otherwise, some > people may be taken into believing that HAL is really here. > > Mike Archbold > > On 5/22/13, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Watson video: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-gZkqCXOgs > > > > Some interesting comments. It was based on a system that took results from > > a number of probabilistic analytical methods that included natural language > > systems. Two things. Most nlp systems use highly structured relations > > between described parts of language as references for the statistical > > methods that they use. So Watson does not demonstrate how language may be > > learned. Secondly, as Watson solved the problem it had to handle a > > combinatorial explosion (of a manageable size). One of the problems that we > > have is that even if we were able to begin writing programs of that kind of > > complexity we still would not be able to develop them on our computers > > because the run time would be too slow. (However, I am struggling with > > relatively simple programming problems so I am not even sure that is a > > relevant issue for me.) > > > > I don't think that statistical methods are the way to go at this point. The > > only evidence from Watson that I have to offer is that Watson did not truly > > learn a language, much of the structure of a language was incorporated into > > the model that they used and the statistical methods were derived from > > corpuses derived from statistical studies. However, even though I would use > > statistical models in a more constrained way than the contemporary > > prevailing paradigms such as Watson, I would still use multiple paths to > > discovering possible 'solutions' and multiple paths to evaluate the possible > > 'solutions'. > > > > Jim Bromer > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > AGI > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
