Ann Gelder

Ann Gelder
Birthday
December 31
Bio
A writer and recovering academic. You can read my work in Alaska Quarterly Review, Crazyhorse, Portland Review, The Millions, The Rumpus, and Tin House. I have taught comparative literature at Stanford and Berkeley, and I recently completed my first novel.

MY RECENT POSTS

Ann Gelder's Links

Salon.com
Editor’s Pick
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 11:15AM

But Watson isn't gracious

Rate: 5 Flag

I have never been a big fan of Jeopardy!, mostly because I feel that memorizing gazillions of facts and spitting them out on cue is not an especially good use of human brain power. (Also I can't do it.)

So I had never heard of Ken Jennings or his amazing 2004 winning streak, up until this whole kerfuffle about Watson. If I had, I would probably have assumed (ungraciously) that he was a sort of stunted character, having funneled all his life force into the dubious goal of being a game-show champion.

But his article on Slate about losing to Watson is a truly lovely piece of writing. In the first place, he gently reminds us that Watson is not the plucky underdog in this story. The real winners last night were IBM shareholders. In other words, Corporate America, in one of its most behemoth-like incarnations. Innovative as Watson is, that vaguely androgynous purr is the voice of global capitalism lulling us into a charmed sleep. (This is me going off here; Jennings doesn't take the point this far.)

Reading Jennings's piece, I realized I had in fact come to think of Watson as the underdog, after watching PBS's "Smartest Machine on Earth" the other night. In fact, Watson's pluckiness really belongs to its engineers, who worked constantly for four years to bring a seemingly impossible dream to reality (a dream set in motion by watching Jennings). That's how the show frames the story, anyway. We even see how hurt one of the engineers is when the practice Jeopardy! host, a comedian hired by IBM, makes fun of Watson. The engineer's kids were hurt by the mockery when they watched the practice rounds; the engineer says, without irony, that "Watson is defenseless." So I found myself rooting for Watson to beat the humans--which is a pretty amazing bit of jiu-jitsu by IBM and NOVA. While I really do admire the engineers' accomplishment, it's important to remember on whose behalf it was accomplished.

Jennings takes his defeat with a nuanced dose of humility and humor. He uses it as an occasion to reflect on his own experience of winning, something Watson, of course, could never do:

Indeed, playing against Watson turned out to be a lot like any other Jeopardy! game, though out of the corner of my eye I could see that the middle player had a plasma screen for a face. Watson has lots in common with a top-ranked human Jeopardy! player: It's very smart, very fast, speaks in an uneven monotone, and has never known the touch of a woman. But unlike us, Watson cannot be intimidated. It never gets cocky or discouraged. It plays its game coldly, implacably, always offering a perfectly timed buzz when it's confident about an answer. [....]

During my 2004 Jeopardy! streak, I was accustomed to mowing down players already demoralized at having to play a long-standing winner like me. But against Watson I felt like the underdog, and as a result I started out too aggressively, blowing high-dollar-value questions on the decade in which the first crossword puzzle appeared (the 1910s) and the handicap of Olympic gymnast George Eyser (he was missing his left leg).

So Watson may make game-show contestants obsolete, as Jennings, not entirely humorously, predicts. But Watson will never win or lose as graciously, and with as much subtle intelligence, as Jennings demonstrates in this essay.

So the humans are still winning, if you ask me.

Author tags:

television, technology, science, news

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I only managed to catch the third night of the Watson episodes of "Jeopardy". Jennings' addendum to his "Final Jeopardy" answer was a hoot - "(I for one welcome the rise of our new computer overlord)". He wasn't that funny when he was on before. All that money has loosened him up!
This was itself a lovely, gracious piece of writing, Ann Gelder! Really, I enjoyed it far more than any article about Jeopardy or computers normally merits.

I never watch television game shows and can think of precisely two times in the last few decades when I have. The first happened because my parents were in town and were excited to tell me about this game show they watched regularly. We tuned in and this is what we saw:

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?

The second time happened just last fall when I was in an Emergency Room waiting to have my broken leg checked for a blood clot. We all sat like zombies in a crowded and dingy cell with plastic chairs facing the TV. This is what I saw:

Wheel of Fortune

Ken Jennings' winning streak would have fit nicely into my repertoire, 'cause apparently I only watch winners :)
I was surprised at the number of 'wrong' answers appeared on the screen overlay, giving the human players a one up and allowing them to score well in the Double Jeopardy game. The computer is unable to 'get' slang and double entendre from what I could see. All very interesting...I can't imagine where it will go...HAL maybe? or R2D2?
I agree, there is no graciousness in solid state circuitry. I'm more upset that the producers of Jeopardy would collude with IBM in such a garish, overblown infomercial. Even Alex Trebek seemed to be fighting back a distaste for the proceedings. The slick IBM "commercial spots of hyperbole-spewing scientists all most made me upchuck. Indeed the winners were the IBM shareholders and global corporatism. Good post.
Good for the IBM shareholders; they invested, they should reap rewards, and so do we all, without putting up a shilling. When Watson makes a correct medical diagnosis on a disease close to your heart, you might pipe a different tune. And why should Watson be gracious? Who is anymore?
I like the way that Ken Jennings has handled this, especially his humor, but I think that the humans are really winning *because* of what Watson has accomplished. This is a huge step for the field of AI, just like Deep Blue (the computer who beat Kasparov at chess in 97). In that respect, I kind of disagree with the idea of Watson as a representation of corporatism- I really do think that this success will end up having more of an impact on academia and further research into search algorithms than anything.
I actually agree that Watson is a human triumph as well. It's a tangled web...
I agree that the technological advances by IBM, and any benefits stemming from them could be a boon to humanity and their shareholders. More power to us all.

My beef is with the PR vehicle that was used, namely the Jeopardy game show, which in my view has maintained a semblance of integrity amid the increasingly crass tv game show environment. That's it, that's all.
I work with electronics and did respect what the engineers were able to do in "bringing Watson to life".
I enjoy watching Jeopardy because I have always enjoyed trivia.
I reminds me of my accomplishments as a human being~~trivial.

I have always seen wheel of fortune as a show for tea partyers.
In other wors, what is on the screen is K-TTEN and, the tea partyer wants to buy a vowel.