Glen Beane <glen.be...@jax.org> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2011, at 3:27 AM, Jonathan Aquilina <eagles051...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > To be tied with a human though i feel means they are on par with humans. > > > > At answering questions on Jeopardy or playing chess (deep blue). These are designed to do a very specific task well.
It was too bad they didn't reveal how the computer set its dollar values for daily doubles. They were very, very different from what a human would have wagered. My impression was that one factor was how well it was doing in that category, so if it had already answered some questions right it would bet more than when it hit the daily double on the first question. There is apparently a rule in Jeopardy that a wager cannot bet less than $5 on a daily double, and since the regular questions are all multiples of ten, this may have factored in somehow to result in machine wagers that ended in 5. It was also interesting that the second answer on the machine's list was often clearly ruled out by the question, yet would have a probability like 30%. The only example of this I remember gave a year in the 1600's and asked who the Lucasian Chair was at that time. The machine did pick Newton, but its second best answer was Stephen Hawking, who was obviously not around at the time. A human would have put one of Newton's contemporaries in that spot, and probably not remembering the occupants of that chair before and after Newton (neither of whom was remotely as famous), might have listed somebody like Robert Hooke, who was better known than either of them, and more likely to be remembered by somebody with a good background in Science, but not a PhD in the history of mathematics. Regards, David Mathog mat...@caltech.edu Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
