• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Forgot Chess, computers now want to compete on Jeopardy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Computer Program to Take On ‘Jeopardy!’

By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: April 26, 2009

YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, N.Y. — This highly successful television quiz show is the latest challenge for artificial intelligence.

What is “Jeopardy”?

That is correct.

I.B.M. plans to announce Monday that it is in the final stages of completing a computer program to compete against human “Jeopardy!” contestants. If the program beats the humans, the field of artificial intelligence will have made a leap forward.

I.B.M. scientists previously devised a chess-playing program to run on a supercomputer called Deep Blue. That program beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in a controversial 1997 match (Mr. Kasparov called the match unfair and secured a draw in a later one against another version of the program).

But chess is a game of limits, with pieces that have clearly defined powers. “Jeopardy!” requires a program with the suppleness to weigh an almost infinite range of relationships and to make subtle comparisons and interpretations. The software must interact with humans on their own terms, and fast.

Indeed, the creators of the system — which the company refers to as Watson, after the I.B.M. founder, Thomas J. Watson Sr. — said they were not yet confident their system would be able to compete successfully on the show, on which human champions typically provide correct responses 85 percent of the time.

“The big goal is to get computers to be able to converse in human terms,” said the team leader, David A. Ferrucci, an I.B.M. artificial intelligence researcher. “And we’re not there yet.”

The team is aiming not at a true thinking machine but at a new class of software that can “understand” human questions and respond to them correctly. Such a program would have enormous economic implications.

Despite more than four decades of experimentation in artificial intelligence, scientists have made only modest progress until now toward building machines that can understand language and interact with humans.

The proposed contest is an effort by I.B.M. to prove that its researchers can make significant technical progress by picking “grand challenges” like its early chess foray. The new bid is based on three years of work by a team that has grown to 20 experts in fields like natural language processing, machine learning and information retrieval.

Under the rules of the match that the company has negotiated with the “Jeopardy!” producers, the computer will not have to emulate all human qualities. It will receive questions as electronic text. The human contestants will both see the text of each question and hear it spoken by the show’s host, Alex Trebek.


The computer will respond with a synthesized voice to answer questions and to choose follow-up categories. I.B.M. researchers said they planned to move a Blue Gene supercomputer to Los Angeles for the contest. To approximate the dimensions of the challenge faced by the human contestants, the computer will not be connected to the Internet, but will make its answers based on text that it has “read,” or processed and indexed, before the show.

There is some skepticism among researchers in the field about the effort. “To me it seems more like a demonstration than a grand challenge,” said Peter Norvig, a computer scientist who is director of research at Google. “This will explore lots of different capabilities, but it won’t change the way the field works.”

The I.B.M. researchers and “Jeopardy!” producers said they were considering what form their cybercontestant would take and what gender it would assume. One possibility would be to use an animated avatar that would appear on a computer display.

“We’ve only begun to talk about it,” said Harry Friedman, the executive producer of “Jeopardy!” “We all agree that it shouldn’t look like Robby the Robot.”


Mr. Friedman added that they were also thinking about whom the human contestants should be and were considering inviting Ken Jennings, the “Jeopardy!” contestant who won 74 consecutive times and collected $2.52 million in 2004.

I.B.M. will not reveal precisely how large the system’s internal database would be. The actual amount of information could be a significant fraction of the Web now indexed by Google, but artificial intelligence researchers said that having access to more information would not be the most significant key to improving the system’s performance.

Eric Nyberg, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University, is collaborating with I.B.M. on research to devise computing systems capable of answering questions that are not limited to specific topics. The real difficulty, Dr. Nyberg said, is not searching a database but getting the computer to understand what it should be searching for.

The system must be able to deal with analogies, puns, double entendres and relationships like size and location, all at lightning speed.

In a demonstration match here at the I.B.M. laboratory against two researchers recently, Watson appeared to be both aggressive and competent, but also made the occasional puzzling blunder.

For example, given the statement, “Bordered by Syria and Israel, this small country is only 135 miles long and 35 miles wide,” Watson beat its human competitors by quickly answering, “What is Lebanon?”

Moments later, however, the program stumbled when it decided it had high confidence that a “sheet” was a fruit.


The way to deal with such problems, Dr. Ferrucci said, is to improve the program’s ability to understand the way “Jeopardy!” clues are offered. The complexity of the challenge is underscored by the subtlety involved in capturing the exact meaning of a spoken sentence. For example, the sentence “I never said she stole my money” can have seven different meanings depending on which word is stressed.

“We love those sentences,” Dr. Nyberg said. “Those are the ones we talk about when we’re sitting around having beers after work.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/technology/27jeopardy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
 
Okay, this is a great leap forward in database querying and logic comprehension, but how does accessing an archive of static information really compare to human memory, with its fallibility? It's not really that impressive for a RAID array not to forget something.
 

KHarvey16

Member
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, N.Y.

I'm from there!

The impressive aspect of this, as they state in the article, is not the ability to look up information. It's in the ability to parse sentences and understand what is needed. The article makes that pretty clear.
 

Troidal

Member
I'm not a software engineer, but why is this even considered?

Considering how much computers can store and access a multitude of data and information, wouldn't it be able to plug in the right answers quickly? Like what search engines do.

Likewise, if a computer played in Wheel of Fortune, I'm sure he would win too.
 

Drkirby

Corporate Apologist
WE ARE ANNOUNCING THAT WE PLAN TO ANNOUNCE SOMETHING NEXT WEEK, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE ANTHER ANNOUNCEMENT!


I know the point, but it still annoys me.
 

Darko

Member
terminator_robot.jpg
 
Troidal said:
I'm not a software engineer, but why is this even considered?

Considering how much computers can store and access a multitude of data and information, wouldn't it be able to plug in the right answers quickly? Like what search engines do.

Likewise, if a computer played in Wheel of Fortune, I'm sure he would win too.
The problem they are trying to solve is "interpretation". We know computers can search large amounts of info, but reading and understanding the question properly, especially not having prior context, is a very very hard thing to do. This problem is additionally compounded by the fact that the English language is ambiguous on a lot of terms.

The article even states why it's having problems.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
watervengeance said:
Damn, I didn't know that Go had such a history with programmers.
It's probably one of the top 3-5 open ended problems in the computer science field that are trying to be tackled by the industry.
 

Juice

Member
GaimeGuy said:
It's probably one of the top 3-5 open ended problems in the computer science field that are trying to be tackled by the industry.

I don't think "industry" is the word to be used there.
 

Althane

Member
Juice said:
I don't think "industry" is the word to be used there.

For the people who are interested in making AI, getting a program that can play games competently is a great step forward. Go is a more complicated game than chess is, which has a much more finite number of gamestates, and even more finite when you string together different gambits and the like.

This IS something I'd be interested in, although for now it seems like you would need a human brain working alongside the computer to explain the meaning of the statement.
 

Brobzoid

how do I slip unnoticed out of a gloryhole booth?
GaimeGuy said:
It's probably one of the top 3-5 open ended problems in the computer science field that are trying to be tackled by the industry.
yep.

wiki said:
As of June 2008[update], the most powerful supercomputer in the world, IBM's "Roadrunner" distributed cluster, can sustain 1.02 petaflops.[76][77][78] At this rate, even given an exceedingly low estimate of 10 flops required to assess the value of one play of a stone, Roadrunner would require 138 hours, more than five days, to assess all possible combinations of the next eight moves in order to make a single play.

wiki said:
The game complexity of Go is such that describing even elementary strategy fills many introductory books. In fact, numerical estimates show that the number of possible games of Go far exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe.[71]

insane shit.
 

Juice

Member
Althane said:
For the people who are interested in making AI, getting a program that can play games competently is a great step forward. Go is a more complicated game than chess is, which has a much more finite number of gamestates, and even more finite when you string together different gambits and the like.

This IS something I'd be interested in, although for now it seems like you would need a human brain working alongside the computer to explain the meaning of the statement.

I don't disagree that games are among the most useful things to model when developing AI (I made a fun little neural net model in Java last summer and trained it to beat Sudoku puzzles... very fun to tinker), I just took issue that it's one of the top five things the "industry" is focused on.

AI "industry" perhaps, but not "the computer science field" by a longshot. That field, if it directly translates to a single industry, would throw such a wide net that beating a human at Go wouldn't make the top hundred open ended problems to be tackled (by amount funded)
 
The game complexity of Go is such that describing even elementary strategy fills many introductory books. In fact, numerical estimates show that the number of possible games of Go far exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe.[71]

Mind = Blown; thread is now about AI playing Go
 

LakeEarth

Member
speculawyer said:
I think it would be easier to create this program than a program to play chess well.
The hard part isn't knowing the answer. The hard part is understanding the question. Well, in Jeopardy's case, vise versa.
 

Eteric Rice

Member
Brobzoid said:
Wake me up when they get an AI to play Go.

This.

Whats hilarious is that even if the day comes where computers can completely master Go, all we have to do is say, "okay, time to make 21x21 boards."

Go is seriously a game that almost seems beyond something man made. :D
 

Maximilian E.

AKA MS-Evangelist
Oh oh..
I think that they (robots) have made the first attack now..

From a swedish newspaper:


Robot misshandlade anställd

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article5004310.ab

Företagets robot gick oväntat till attack och skadade en anställd allvarligt.

Nu har företaget fått böta 25 000 kronor som ansvarigt för händelsen.

– Jag har aldrig hört talas om en robot som misshandlat en människa på det här sättet, säger åklagare Leif Johansson till TT.
--------

Translated:

Robot assaulted employee

The company robot unexpectedly attacked and injuried severly, an employee.
The company must now pay 25 000 SEK for this event.

"I have never heard about a robot assaulting a human being in this way, said prosecutioner Leif Johansson"
----------

it has begun..
 

Althane

Member
Juice said:
I don't disagree that games are among the most useful things to model when developing AI (I made a fun little neural net model in Java last summer and trained it to beat Sudoku puzzles... very fun to tinker), I just took issue that it's one of the top five things the "industry" is focused on.

AI "industry" perhaps, but not "the computer science field" by a longshot. That field, if it directly translates to a single industry, would throw such a wide net that beating a human at Go wouldn't make the top hundred open ended problems to be tackled (by amount funded)


Heh, one of my friends is working on a sudoku solver, but not in any complicated way, just basic brute-force.

And, fair enough. Using the term "the industry" is a rather open-ended term, I just naturally interpreted it to be "That section that's working on it". =P

Yeah, no, the CS field as a whole is involved in way too many different things. However AI is a good focus, since it is one of the theoretical "silver bullets" (or has that been discounted now?) that would solve some of the essential problems of programming.

Granted, that's still a subset of CS (programming, that is). But, yeah.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand!

Go-playing robot is a mastery of strategic thinking, while Jeopardy playing robot is mastery of understanding incoming questions (due to the stress placed on them... that could be really fun to tinker with!) and then an efficient search algorithm of... well, the combined set of human knowledge, really. I bet you can google most answers though. =P
 

Keylime

ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
The thing will definitely, as in 100%, take on the gender of a woman.

Heard it here first.

That aside, I have to imagine Jeopardy would have to tailor it's questions to be in AI understandable form. When they have random categories or video clues, wtf is this thing supposed to do?

A lot of times Jeopardy questions have humor in them to hint at certain things. It's not all straight factual information like "This island which is this big and borders these countries..."

In a controlled game the AI will likely do very very very well. In a real game of Jeopardy, the thing would get trounced.

...and how is it fair for the computer to be able to buzz in? If they wanted, they could have the thing instantly buzz in everytime so that if it thought it knew the answer, it'd definitely get the buzz in.

The whole thing breaks down pretty fast.

...and to think that 20 "experts" are spending time on this. I fully realize that there are great things to learn about AI from this experiment, but come on man...
 

KHarvey16

Member
RubxQub said:
The thing will definitely, as in 100%, take on the gender of a woman.

Heard it here first.

That aside, I have to imagine Jeopardy would have to tailor it's questions to be in AI understandable form. When they have random categories or video clues, wtf is this thing supposed to do?

A lot of times Jeopardy questions have humor in them to hint at certain things. It's not all straight factual information like "This island which is this big and borders these countries..."

In a controlled game the AI will likely do very very very well. In a real game of Jeopardy, the thing would get trounced.

...and how is it fair for the computer to be able to buzz in? If they wanted, they could have the thing instantly buzz in everytime so that if it thought it knew the answer, it'd definitely get the buzz in.

The whole thing breaks down pretty fast.

...and to think that 20 "experts" are spending time on this. I fully realize that there are great things to learn about AI from this experiment, but come on man...

Why would they change the format of the questions? Interpretation is precisely the challenge the researchers are trying to overcome.
 

Keylime

ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
KHarvey16 said:
Why would they change the format of the questions? Interpretation is precisely the challenge the researchers are trying to overcome.
Sure. But there is absolutely no way that the thing is going to be able to account for some random category that the show may throw at it.

Jeopardy has oddball categories that create new rulesets.

Category: "Nho we won't go", All answers in this category will have the letters N, H and O in them.

Category: "Rhyme Time", All answers in this category will consist of two rhyming words.

etc etc

There is no way this machine can adapt to ad-hoc rulesets. Someone would have to program the thing right then and there when the category was announced, making it all smoke and mirrors at that point.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Eteric Rice said:
This.

Whats hilarious is that even if the day comes where computers can completely master Go, all we have to do is say, "okay, time to make 21x21 boards."

Go is seriously a game that almost seems beyond something man made. :D
Forget 21x21!


A normal go board is 19x19 = 361 intersections

I say, we go for a 361x361 board :p
 
RubxQub said:
Sure. But there is absolutely no way that the thing is going to be able to account for some random category that the show may throw at it.

Jeopardy has oddball categories that create new rulesets.

Category: "Nho we won't go", All answers in this category will have the letters N, H and O in them.

Category: "Rhyme Time", All answers in this category will consist of two rhyming words.

etc etc

There is no way this machine can adapt to ad-hoc rulesets. Someone would have to program the thing right then and there when the category was announced, making it all smoke and mirrors at that point.
Well, it would be easy enough for them to know what sort of things Jeopardy has done in the past to create templates which it could be made to understand to use for certain categories. The two you mention seem easy enough, but I don't watch enough Jeopardy to know how far-out these rules might get.

Though interpreting video would indeed be a whole new ballgame. Probably they'd leave stuff like that out, but it could be part of the challenge that it would basically need to be so good otherwise that it could afford to forfeit those.
 

Keylime

ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
JoshuaJSlone said:
Well, it would be easy enough for them to know what sort of things Jeopardy has done in the past to create templates which it could be made to understand to use for certain categories. The two you mention seem easy enough, but I don't watch enough Jeopardy to know how far-out these rules might get.

Though interpreting video would indeed be a whole new ballgame. Probably they'd leave stuff like that out, but it could be part of the challenge that it would basically need to be so good otherwise that it could afford to forfeit those.
I agree that they could attempt to program for common templates, however 99% of the time, the category names don't describe what the ruleset is, so the computer would have no way to know how it is supposed to interpret those categories.

Alex verbally describes what the theme of the category is to the contestants. This AI would have to pick up what is said through microphones and interpret the audio into a ruleset.

It's just not going to happen unless Jeopardy specifically avoids these types of things to accommodate the AI's programming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom