Until last week, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter were the most successful contestants ever to have competed on the quiz show Jeopardy. Alas, it now appears that an asterisk will need to be placed next to their names, indicating that they are merely the most successful “flesh-and-blood” contestants. As you may have heard, the “Watson” computer (named after IBM founder Thomas Watson) thoroughly trounced both of them—and on national TV, no less!
Of course, in fairness, it should be noted that Watson is more than just a single computer. He (or it, I guess) is actually 2,800 computers, all cleverly linked together, and into which IBM researchers poured a sea of knowledge—everything from Bible verses to Beatles songs (the rough equivalent of a byte for every book in the Library of Congress). The servers alone occupied the size of a small, one-room apartment. Still, given our track record with computer miniaturization, it isn’t hard to imagine that, one day, Watson’s offspring could shrink down to the size of a smartphone.
So should we be panicked by this latest machine-over-man triumph? Are all of those sci-fi movies—where robots take over the world, and keep humans around as pets—about to be played out in real life? Doubtful. If you ask me, there is much more to admire than fear about Watson’s performance. For example, just imagine a Watson-like machine programmed with every medical journal article ever written, as well as the histories of millions of patients, and how helpful that might potentially prove in diagnosing and treating complex diseases.
Moreover, despite Watson’s obvious proficiency at spitting out miscellaneous facts and figures, knowledge without understanding, or judgment, is always limited. Sure, a computer may be able to guide a spaceship, with pinpoint accuracy, to land on Mars. But can it dream of traveling to Mars in the first place? A computer may be able to calculate the value of pi to the nth decimal place. But can it find beauty in a sunrise, or be inspired by a work of art, or appreciate the giggle of a child at play?
Some of the smartest people I have ever met have also been the most clueless, for the simple reason that having vast amounts of information about life and knowing how to live it are two very different things. I dare say, you can study every book ever published on swimming; but until you actually climb into the water, you won’t have the slightest inkling what it’s like.
Should we be impressed that a computer won on Jeopardy? Absolutely. If nothing else, it is a testimony to human ingenuity. But I don’t think we need to be overly intimidated by it. The computer is an amazing invention, no doubt. However, unlike us, it is still just an invention, not a creation!
Of course, in fairness, it should be noted that Watson is more than just a single computer. He (or it, I guess) is actually 2,800 computers, all cleverly linked together, and into which IBM researchers poured a sea of knowledge—everything from Bible verses to Beatles songs (the rough equivalent of a byte for every book in the Library of Congress). The servers alone occupied the size of a small, one-room apartment. Still, given our track record with computer miniaturization, it isn’t hard to imagine that, one day, Watson’s offspring could shrink down to the size of a smartphone.
So should we be panicked by this latest machine-over-man triumph? Are all of those sci-fi movies—where robots take over the world, and keep humans around as pets—about to be played out in real life? Doubtful. If you ask me, there is much more to admire than fear about Watson’s performance. For example, just imagine a Watson-like machine programmed with every medical journal article ever written, as well as the histories of millions of patients, and how helpful that might potentially prove in diagnosing and treating complex diseases.
Moreover, despite Watson’s obvious proficiency at spitting out miscellaneous facts and figures, knowledge without understanding, or judgment, is always limited. Sure, a computer may be able to guide a spaceship, with pinpoint accuracy, to land on Mars. But can it dream of traveling to Mars in the first place? A computer may be able to calculate the value of pi to the nth decimal place. But can it find beauty in a sunrise, or be inspired by a work of art, or appreciate the giggle of a child at play?
Some of the smartest people I have ever met have also been the most clueless, for the simple reason that having vast amounts of information about life and knowing how to live it are two very different things. I dare say, you can study every book ever published on swimming; but until you actually climb into the water, you won’t have the slightest inkling what it’s like.
Should we be impressed that a computer won on Jeopardy? Absolutely. If nothing else, it is a testimony to human ingenuity. But I don’t think we need to be overly intimidated by it. The computer is an amazing invention, no doubt. However, unlike us, it is still just an invention, not a creation!
posted by Dr. Robert Crilley at
4:25 PM
2 Comments:
Good food for thought and insight! Hadn't given that too much thought, but your blog was reassuring.
By
Anonymous, at 9:30 AM
You make some excellent points. My COBOL professor, way back in college, was fond of saying "all a computer can do is add one, subtract one, or do nothing." Probably still the case; but today, it can do those things at such blinding speed and in such creative ways (the programmers' creativity, not the computers, of course) that one can't help but be a little troubled by some of the implications. It's true that "Watson" didn't know that he won "Jeopardy", what "Jeopardy" is, that "he" exists, or anything else. Watson was just adding one and subtracting one. But it won the game, nevertheless. Likewise, its descendants won't know they're diagnosing patients' diseases, or researching legal issues, or doing any number of other things currently done by humans. But they'll be taking those humans' jobs, nevertheless.
By
Anonymous, at 8:18 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home