Comments on: UPDATE | The buzzer factor: did Watson have an unfair advantage? http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage Accelerating Intelligence Sun, 26 May 2013 01:39:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: BM http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-35599 BM Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:40:07 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-35599 That's exactly right, editor (your post on Feb 24 2011). If there were no buzzer and it were just a test to see which contestant would have answered the highest percentage of the questions correctly, the computer would have been FAR behind the humans. Either that OR if Watson also had to rely on timing the buzz right after Alex stopped talking (instead of being sent a signal when it was time to answer), it would also have failed. Watson was definitely at an unfair advantage. That’s exactly right, editor (your post on Feb 24 2011). If there were no buzzer and it were just a test to see which contestant would have answered the highest percentage of the questions correctly, the computer would have been FAR behind the humans. Either that OR if Watson also had to rely on timing the buzz right after Alex stopped talking (instead of being sent a signal when it was time to answer), it would also have failed. Watson was definitely at an unfair advantage.

]]> By: RobPreece http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-3197 RobPreece Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:08:14 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-3197 My feeling was that Watson could "read" the question whereas the mere humans listened to Alex. Of course the speed-buzzer is impressive but let's be honest--isn't it amazing that computer hardware/software allows a computer to ask so many natural language questions? I did notice that the actual questions seemed oriented toward Watson--mostly fact-based rather than some of those complex word play games they sometimes ask. Still, well-done IBM and Watson My feeling was that Watson could “read” the question whereas the mere humans listened to Alex. Of course the speed-buzzer is impressive but let’s be honest–isn’t it amazing that computer hardware/software allows a computer to ask so many natural language questions? I did notice that the actual questions seemed oriented toward Watson–mostly fact-based rather than some of those complex word play games they sometimes ask. Still, well-done IBM and Watson

]]> By: Guest http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-3046 Guest Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:57:36 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-3046 Watson may have had a buzzer advantage, and perhaps the humans actually knew more of the answers than Watson, but keep in mind that the questions are kept to a limited level of difficulty so as to keep the game interesting. That is, if the questions (I know, it's "answers" on Jeopardy!) were so difficult that only 10% could be answered, the show would not go on. However, Watson could probably answer questions at a much greater level of minutiae or obscurity than what the humans could. For example, how many species of frogs there are, or the name of the author of some minor novel from 1975, etc. Thus, one of Watson's major advantages, his sheer volume of knowledge, is eliminated. The questions could be made so simple that the average human would get all the questions right and Watson would still miss some because of his limitations with language comprehension, or they could be made so hard that any human would miss almost every question but Watson might still get a large percentage correct. What it boils down to is that humans almost always understand what piece of data is being sought from the question, but don't always know the answer. Watson doesn't always understand what is being asked (to simplify his processes), or can't always find an answer in his mass of unstructured data, but he's pretty good. So Watson may have only won because of his buzzer advantage, but the humans only even had a shot because the questions were kept "easy" for them. Watson may have had a buzzer advantage, and perhaps the humans actually knew more of the answers than Watson, but keep in mind that the questions are kept to a limited level of difficulty so as to keep the game interesting. That is, if the questions (I know, it’s “answers” on Jeopardy!) were so difficult that only 10% could be answered, the show would not go on. However, Watson could probably answer questions at a much greater level of minutiae or obscurity than what the humans could. For example, how many species of frogs there are, or the name of the author of some minor novel from 1975, etc. Thus, one of Watson’s major advantages, his sheer volume of knowledge, is eliminated. The questions could be made so simple that the average human would get all the questions right and Watson would still miss some because of his limitations with language comprehension, or they could be made so hard that any human would miss almost every question but Watson might still get a large percentage correct.
What it boils down to is that humans almost always understand what piece of data is being sought from the question, but don’t always know the answer. Watson doesn’t always understand what is being asked (to simplify his processes), or can’t always find an answer in his mass of unstructured data, but he’s pretty good. So Watson may have only won because of his buzzer advantage, but the humans only even had a shot because the questions were kept “easy” for them.

]]> By: DCWhatthe http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2689 DCWhatthe Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:38:33 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2689 If the buzzer wasn't an issue, and Watson still won or tied, then some other excuse would have been cooked up to show how 'unfair' it is. When you play a game which involves more than one participant, and all of the players follow all of the rules, and then you claim it was unfair because one of the players is faster at following one of the rules - that's just being a sore loser. Even if Watson didn't perform as well, and lost this series of matches, we all know the next generation of Watsons will win. And the generation after that, will win beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hopefully, the generation of AIs which directly connect to our brains, will be open-source versions. IBM has my gratitude, but not my complete trust. No single company or agency, is entitled to that kind of trust - not when the resources are this close to the core of our consciousness, our will, our human identities. If the buzzer wasn’t an issue, and Watson still won or tied, then some other excuse would have been cooked up to show how ‘unfair’ it is.

When you play a game which involves more than one participant, and all of the players follow all of the rules, and then you claim it was unfair because one of the players is faster at following one of the rules – that’s just being a sore loser.

Even if Watson didn’t perform as well, and lost this series of matches, we all know the next generation of Watsons will win. And the generation after that, will win beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Hopefully, the generation of AIs which directly connect to our brains, will be open-source versions.

IBM has my gratitude, but not my complete trust. No single company or agency, is entitled to that kind of trust – not when the resources are this close to the core of our consciousness, our will, our human identities.

]]> By: Editor http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2656 Editor Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:41:54 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2656 ADDED TO THE BLOG POST FEB. 24, 2011: From Final Jeopardy: Man vs Machine Man vs. Machine and the Quest to Know Everything by Stephen Baker: "After the match, Jennings and Rutter stressed that the computer still had cognitive catching up to do. They both agreed that if Jeopardy had been a written test --- a measure of knowledge, not speed --- they both would have outperformed Watson. "It was it's buzzer that killed us," Rutter said." Note that this appears to contradict statements made by IBM. ADDED TO THE BLOG POST FEB. 24, 2011:

From Final Jeopardy: Man vs Machine Man vs. Machine and the Quest to Know Everything by Stephen Baker:

“After the match, Jennings and Rutter stressed that the computer still had cognitive catching up to do. They both agreed that if Jeopardy had been a written test — a measure of knowledge, not speed — they both would have outperformed Watson. “It was it’s buzzer that killed us,” Rutter said.”

Note that this appears to contradict statements made by IBM.

]]> By: omelv44 http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2651 omelv44 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:53:26 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2651 What if the Singularity never happens? It is the name of the essay by Vernor Vinge, the shill of the IT companies that coined the collocation “The technological singularity”. The essay was interesting but he didn’t take into account the fact that in the situation when the IT firms realize their limitations and achieve a stalemate in their run for the superhuman intelligence, they will do everithing to conseale this fact. They will pretend that they still make great progress whose rate is exponential. Otherwise, they will lose their market share, they may go bankrupt, their fall may affect the whole US economy triggering the fall of the world’s economy. That is why the US government shouldn’t try to shoot their mouths when the IT firms continue to promise us the earth. But take into account the following scenario: 1) The US and world’s companies have found out that they cannot create AI 2) To avoid collapse they decide to immitate that everything is OK and here is the strategy: 3) They will use their shills such as Kurzweil, Goertzel, Gershenfeld, Moravec, Jacobstein 4) Yudkovsky, Vinge, Guildner, Diamandis, etc. to prove that: i) The progress is still exponential (bullshit of Kurzweil, Moravec, etc.) ii) Creating superhuman AI is easier than Windows Vista (bullshit of Goertzel) iii) AI is ubiquitous (bullshit of Jacobstein, Kurzweil, etc.) iv) The sing is near (bullshit of Kurzweil, Vinge, Goertzel, Yudkovsky, etc.) 5) Some of those shills will show signs of inadequate behavior to prove that they really believe in the bullshit they spread all over the world, e.g. Kurzweil eating 200 pills a day to be able to live longer and see “the inevitable singularity” 6) Some important persons in the IT industry will say some kind words about such shills to show the world that they are cool guys, e.g. Bill Gates comparing Ray Kurzweil with Edison or Larry Page, talking the bullshit that if he had been a student we would have wasted his money on studying at “the singularity” “university”. 7) The company like IBM would give bribes to the organizers of the show like Jeopardy to obtain from them the list of questions which would be asked when their Kwikaklika (quicker clicker) program challenges the best players at this show. It wouldn’t even look for the answers. It will obtain the question in the form “question number 9.” or “question number 123456789.” And hence it will give the answers stored in the memory of their computer. This fraud would immitate the victory over the best human Jeopardy players. 8) It will create an illusion to naïve singulartarians that the sing is really near and the CEOs of the biggest IT companies will laugh at those gullible dorks how professionally they have bamboozled them (and the world) and enabled themselves to preserve their strong positions in the market for the next decade although they are not capable of shit. 9) They will also produce some walking devices that can immitate abilities of some insects to create an illusion that the progress is still keeping. 10) They will even try to create some kind of religion. Ron Hubbard told that if you want to be really reach, you must create your own religion. So they would create the religion called “singularitarianism” with the main priest Ray Kurzweil. The sectarians will believe in some good fairy in form of some intelligent machine which will do everithing instead of them. And ultimately consume everything instead of them, by the way. This all combined will cause that thousands or even millions stubborns believing in all this bullshit will pop out like mushrooms and they will be ready to attack everyone with different opinion! Especially people saying the truth like me :) :) :D What if the Singularity never happens? It is the name of the essay by Vernor Vinge, the shill of the IT companies that coined the collocation “The technological singularity”. The essay was interesting but he didn’t take into account the fact that in the situation when the IT firms realize their limitations and achieve a stalemate in their run for the superhuman intelligence, they will do everithing to conseale this fact. They will pretend that they still make great progress whose rate is exponential. Otherwise, they will lose their market share, they may go bankrupt, their fall may affect the whole US economy triggering the fall of the world’s economy. That is why the US government shouldn’t try to shoot their mouths when the IT firms continue to promise us the earth. But take into account the following scenario:
1) The US and world’s companies have found out that they cannot create AI
2) To avoid collapse they decide to immitate that everything is OK and here is the strategy:
3) They will use their shills such as Kurzweil, Goertzel, Gershenfeld, Moravec, Jacobstein
4) Yudkovsky, Vinge, Guildner, Diamandis, etc. to prove that:
i) The progress is still exponential (bullshit of Kurzweil, Moravec, etc.)
ii) Creating superhuman AI is easier than Windows Vista (bullshit of Goertzel)
iii) AI is ubiquitous (bullshit of Jacobstein, Kurzweil, etc.)
iv) The sing is near (bullshit of Kurzweil, Vinge, Goertzel, Yudkovsky, etc.)
5) Some of those shills will show signs of inadequate behavior to prove that they really believe in the bullshit they spread all over the world, e.g. Kurzweil eating 200 pills a day to be able to live longer and see “the inevitable singularity”
6) Some important persons in the IT industry will say some kind words about such shills to show the world that they are cool guys, e.g. Bill Gates comparing Ray Kurzweil with Edison or Larry Page, talking the bullshit that if he had been a student we would have wasted his money on studying at “the singularity” “university”.
7) The company like IBM would give bribes to the organizers of the show like Jeopardy to obtain from them the list of questions which would be asked when their Kwikaklika (quicker clicker) program challenges the best players at this show. It wouldn’t even look for the answers. It will obtain the question in the form “question number 9.” or “question number 123456789.” And hence it will give the answers stored in the memory of their computer. This fraud would immitate the victory over the best human Jeopardy players.
8) It will create an illusion to naïve singulartarians that the sing is really near and the CEOs of the biggest IT companies will laugh at those gullible dorks how professionally they have bamboozled them (and the world) and enabled themselves to preserve their strong positions in the market for the next decade although they are not capable of shit.
9) They will also produce some walking devices that can immitate abilities of some insects to create an illusion that the progress is still keeping.
10) They will even try to create some kind of religion. Ron Hubbard told that if you want to be really reach, you must create your own religion. So they would create the religion called “singularitarianism” with the main priest Ray Kurzweil. The sectarians will believe in some good fairy in form of some intelligent machine which will do everithing instead of them. And ultimately consume everything instead of them, by the way.
This all combined will cause that thousands or even millions stubborns believing in all this bullshit will pop out like mushrooms and they will be ready to attack everyone with different opinion! Especially people saying the truth like me :) :) :D

]]> By: melajara http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2641 melajara Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:27:12 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2641 Well, "instantly" was an exageration. What I really meant is as close as possible from allowed and definitely BEFORE having found the answer. The trick being to recover the answer in the time interval allowed to actually voice it ;-) Well, “instantly” was an exageration. What I really meant is as close as possible from allowed and definitely BEFORE having found the answer. The trick being to recover the answer in the time interval allowed to actually voice it ;-)

]]> By: fredpfarnsworth http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2637 fredpfarnsworth Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:27:52 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2637 It is not true that the humans could buzz instantly. There was not a single instance when a human buzzed in before Alex got done reading a question. I've seen contestants buzz in early many times before, but that never happened against Watson. Obviously, they did not allow it. The videos are online. Check it out. It is not true that the humans could buzz instantly. There was not a single instance when a human buzzed in before Alex got done reading a question. I’ve seen contestants buzz in early many times before, but that never happened against Watson. Obviously, they did not allow it. The videos are online. Check it out.

]]> By: fredpfarnsworth http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2627 fredpfarnsworth Tue, 22 Feb 2011 04:03:02 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2627 This is the order of who buzzed in first on the second night (the night Watson took charge). W=Watson, K=Ken, B= Brad W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,K (W=32%), B (W=98%), W,W,K (W=40%),W,W,K (W=65%),W,W,B (W=97%),W,W,W,W So, out of 26 questions, Watson buzzed in first 21 times. 2 of the 5 times he did not buzz in first, he did not even try (W<50%). Brad or Ken buzzed in first only two times when Watson was confident (green). Facts are facts. Most anyone could have beat Ken or Brad if they controlled the game as well as Watson did. This is the order of who buzzed in first on the second night (the night Watson took charge). W=Watson, K=Ken, B= Brad

W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,K (W=32%), B (W=98%), W,W,K (W=40%),W,W,K (W=65%),W,W,B (W=97%),W,W,W,W

So, out of 26 questions, Watson buzzed in first 21 times. 2 of the 5 times he did not buzz in first, he did not even try (W<50%). Brad or Ken buzzed in first only two times when Watson was confident (green).

Facts are facts. Most anyone could have beat Ken or Brad if they controlled the game as well as Watson did.

]]> By: melajara http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2626 melajara Tue, 22 Feb 2011 01:38:06 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2626 On the contrary, the HUMANS had an advantage as they were allowed to buzz instantly, even before having the answer. Of course, that's amounts to a bet, relying on the human metacognitive ability to say to yourself "I know the answer, it's on the tip of my tongue as for now but I will have it in 5 seconds". Why 5 seconds? Because it's about the time you are allowed to start to express the answer once you buzzed. At several times, this delay was perceptible in the human answer see e.g. when Brad answered "Who is Robert De Niro?". On the contrary, the HUMANS had an advantage as they were allowed to buzz instantly, even before having the answer. Of course, that’s amounts to a bet, relying on the human metacognitive ability to say to yourself “I know the answer, it’s on the tip of my tongue as for now but I will have it in 5 seconds”. Why 5 seconds? Because it’s about the time you are allowed to start to express the answer once you buzzed. At several times, this delay was perceptible in the human answer see e.g. when Brad answered “Who is Robert De Niro?”.

]]> By: BryanLong http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2607 BryanLong Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:25:38 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2607 The significance of the IBM achievement is little diminished by any reaction time advantage. But a closer inspection also highlights the amazing power of the human supercomputer, the brain. Consider that Watson consumes about 200,000 Watts, while the combined power consumption of the two human contestants was only about 200 Watts. That's a 1000:1 efficiency advantage. In my essay on Econosystemics.com, I note that Watson also costs an amortized $5000 per day to operate, compared to 3 billion human brains operating on less than $2.50 per day. I'm a believer in the future of computer consciousness, but right now we could consider various "brainsourcing" technologies that could help alleviate world poverty by tapping into and paying for the cognitive capability of underutilized brains to solve complex problems. Essay at http://bit.ly/hfyS8K The significance of the IBM achievement is little diminished by any reaction time advantage. But a closer inspection also highlights the amazing power of the human supercomputer, the brain. Consider that Watson consumes about 200,000 Watts, while the combined power consumption of the two human contestants was only about 200 Watts. That’s a 1000:1 efficiency advantage. In my essay on Econosystemics.com, I note that Watson also costs an amortized $5000 per day to operate, compared to 3 billion human brains operating on less than $2.50 per day. I’m a believer in the future of computer consciousness, but right now we could consider various “brainsourcing” technologies that could help alleviate world poverty by tapping into and paying for the cognitive capability of underutilized brains to solve complex problems. Essay at http://bit.ly/hfyS8K

]]> By: Carbone http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2592 Carbone Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:00:07 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2592 1) What would be the point of having a supercomputer on the show if it were artificially slowed down an never got to answering a question. 2) Why would it be "unfair"? If the game is about buzzing and people suck at buzzing then why restrict a computer? People are better at understanding their own language they invented, noone screams "unfair" and pity the AI here. And as is said in this article. Ken Jennings was so succesful in Jeopardy mostly because he was better at buzzing than other people. 1) What would be the point of having a supercomputer on the show if it were artificially slowed down an never got to answering a question.

2) Why would it be “unfair”? If the game is about buzzing and people suck at buzzing then why restrict a computer? People are better at understanding their own language they invented, noone screams “unfair” and pity the AI here.

And as is said in this article. Ken Jennings was so succesful in Jeopardy mostly because he was better at buzzing than other people.

]]> By: omelv44 http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2591 omelv44 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:33:44 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2591 What if the Singularity never happens? It is the name of the essay by Vernor Vinge, the shill of the IT companies that coined the collocation “The technological singularity”. The essay was interesting but he didn’t take into account the fact that in the situation when the IT firms realize their limitations and achieve a stalemate in their run for the superhuman intelligence, they will do everithing to conseale this fact. They will pretend that they still make great progress whose rate is exponential. Otherwise, they will lose their market share, they may go bankrupt, their fall may affect the whole US economy triggering the fall of the world’s economy. That is why the US government shouldn’t try to shoot their mouths when the IT firms continue to promise us the earth. But take into account the following scenario: 1) The US and world’s companies have found out that they cannot create AI 2) To avoid collapse they decide to immitate that everything is OK and here is the strategy: 3) They will use their shills such as Kurzweil, Goertzel, Gershenfeld, Moravec, Jacobstein 4) Yudkovsky, Vinge, Guildner, Diamandis, etc. to prove that: i) The progress is still exponential (bullshit of Kurzweil, Moravec, etc.) ii) Creating superhuman AI is easier than Windows Vista (bullshit of Goertzel) iii) AI is ubiquitous (bullshit of Jacobstein, Kurzweil, etc.) iv) The sing is near (bullshit of Kurzweil, Vinge, Goertzel, Yudkovsky, etc.) 5) Some of those shills will show signs of inadequate behavior to prove that they really believe in the bullshit they spread all over the world, e.g. Kurzweil eating 200 pills a day to be able to live longer and see “the inevitable singularity” 6) Some important persons in the IT industry will say some kind words about such shills to show the world that they are cool guys, e.g. Bill Gates comparing Ray Kurzweil with Edison or Larry Page, talking the bullshit that if he had been a student we would have wasted his money on studying at “the singularity” “university”. 7) The company like IBM would give bribes to the organizers of the show like Jeopardy to obtain from them the list of questions which would be asked when their Kwikaklika (quicker clicker) program challenges the best players at this show. It wouldn’t even look for the answers. It will obtain the question in the form “question number 9.” or “question number 123456789.” And hence it will give the answers stored in the memory of their computer. This fraud would immitate the victory over the best human Jeopardy players. 8) It will create an illusion to naïve singulartarians that the sing is really near and the CEOs of the biggest IT companies will laugh at those gullible dorks how professionally they have bamboozled them (and the world) and enabled themselves to preserve their strong positions in the market for the next decade although they are not capable of shit. 9) They will also produce some walking devices that can immitate abilities of some insects to create an illusion that the progress is still keeping. 10) They will even try to create some kind of religion. Ron Hubbard told that if you want to be really reach, you must create your own religion. So they would create the religion called “singularitarianism” with the main priest Ray Kurzweil. The sectarians will believe in some good fairy in form of some intelligent machine which will do everithing instead of them. And ultimately consume everything instead of them, by the way. This all combined will cause that thousands or even millions stubborns believing in all this bullshit will pop out like mushrooms and they will be ready to attack everyone with different opinion! Especially people saying the truth like me  What if the Singularity never happens? It is the name of the essay by Vernor Vinge, the shill of the IT companies that coined the collocation “The technological singularity”. The essay was interesting but he didn’t take into account the fact that in the situation when the IT firms realize their limitations and achieve a stalemate in their run for the superhuman intelligence, they will do everithing to conseale this fact. They will pretend that they still make great progress whose rate is exponential. Otherwise, they will lose their market share, they may go bankrupt, their fall may affect the whole US economy triggering the fall of the world’s economy. That is why the US government shouldn’t try to shoot their mouths when the IT firms continue to promise us the earth. But take into account the following scenario:
1) The US and world’s companies have found out that they cannot create AI
2) To avoid collapse they decide to immitate that everything is OK and here is the strategy:
3) They will use their shills such as Kurzweil, Goertzel, Gershenfeld, Moravec, Jacobstein
4) Yudkovsky, Vinge, Guildner, Diamandis, etc. to prove that:
i) The progress is still exponential (bullshit of Kurzweil, Moravec, etc.)
ii) Creating superhuman AI is easier than Windows Vista (bullshit of Goertzel)
iii) AI is ubiquitous (bullshit of Jacobstein, Kurzweil, etc.)
iv) The sing is near (bullshit of Kurzweil, Vinge, Goertzel, Yudkovsky, etc.)
5) Some of those shills will show signs of inadequate behavior to prove that they really believe in the bullshit they spread all over the world, e.g. Kurzweil eating 200 pills a day to be able to live longer and see “the inevitable singularity”
6) Some important persons in the IT industry will say some kind words about such shills to show the world that they are cool guys, e.g. Bill Gates comparing Ray Kurzweil with Edison or Larry Page, talking the bullshit that if he had been a student we would have wasted his money on studying at “the singularity” “university”.
7) The company like IBM would give bribes to the organizers of the show like Jeopardy to obtain from them the list of questions which would be asked when their Kwikaklika (quicker clicker) program challenges the best players at this show. It wouldn’t even look for the answers. It will obtain the question in the form “question number 9.” or “question number 123456789.” And hence it will give the answers stored in the memory of their computer. This fraud would immitate the victory over the best human Jeopardy players.
8) It will create an illusion to naïve singulartarians that the sing is really near and the CEOs of the biggest IT companies will laugh at those gullible dorks how professionally they have bamboozled them (and the world) and enabled themselves to preserve their strong positions in the market for the next decade although they are not capable of shit.
9) They will also produce some walking devices that can immitate abilities of some insects to create an illusion that the progress is still keeping.
10) They will even try to create some kind of religion. Ron Hubbard told that if you want to be really reach, you must create your own religion. So they would create the religion called “singularitarianism” with the main priest Ray Kurzweil. The sectarians will believe in some good fairy in form of some intelligent machine which will do everithing instead of them. And ultimately consume everything instead of them, by the way.
This all combined will cause that thousands or even millions stubborns believing in all this bullshit will pop out like mushrooms and they will be ready to attack everyone with different opinion! Especially people saying the truth like me 

]]> By: davetbo http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-buzzer-factor-did-watson-have-an-unfair-advantage/comment-page-1#comment-2584 davetbo Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:58:20 +0000 http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=109719#comment-2584 I disagree with the "especially Wednesday night" sentiments in the first paragraph. The humans clearly beat Watson to the buzzer many more times than the second night, although the results still ended up well in Watson's favor. It was so dramatic that they were getting more "buzzers in edgewise" that I thought either the humans got better at the buzzer timing or the IBM folks took pity and programmed in a bit of slop factor on Watson's buzzing algorithm. Most likely the two humans had to get back in their Jeopardy mode, shake off the anticipation cobwebs, and minimize their reaction times. Either way, kudos to Watson! I especially liked Ken's final remarks about welcoming the new computer overlords. Someone should tell Ken to apply the "if you can't beat them, join them" principle and pursue the singularity! I disagree with the “especially Wednesday night” sentiments in the first paragraph. The humans clearly beat Watson to the buzzer many more times than the second night, although the results still ended up well in Watson’s favor. It was so dramatic that they were getting more “buzzers in edgewise” that I thought either the humans got better at the buzzer timing or the IBM folks took pity and programmed in a bit of slop factor on Watson’s buzzing algorithm. Most likely the two humans had to get back in their Jeopardy mode, shake off the anticipation cobwebs, and minimize their reaction times. Either way, kudos to Watson! I especially liked Ken’s final remarks about welcoming the new computer overlords. Someone should tell Ken to apply the “if you can’t beat them, join them” principle and pursue the singularity!

]]>