Skip to main content

Watson computer smoking hot at Jeopardy challenge

Well, the contest isn't over yet, but the outcome looks like a foregone conclusion. After two days, the Watson computer is poised to defeat the two human champions it is playing. The computer’s performance has been impressive, to say the least, and has left the human contestants looking dazed  and confused.
 And who wouldn’t be? The computer was both ruthless & relentless. (There I go, anthromorphising again.)  The two human champions were barely able to answer a question or two as Watson virtually ran the board in the 2nd day of the competition. Watson, which has to generate an answer in real-time, was so successful at beating the human contestants to the punch that it generated speculation about whether the computer had some kind of unfair time advantage from being fed the question electronically. As reported here (thanks, Phillip), according to IBM, Watson actually cedes a slight “reaction time” advantage to the human contestants. Given how successful Watson is in determining the correct answer so quickly, I think it would be more sporting to give the poor, deserving human players an even bigger head start. Hey, give us a break!
After day 1, the computer and one of the contestants were tied, and it looked as if things would get interesting. After Tuesday’s totally one-sided shellacking, though, commentators were reduced to wondering about the few missteps and obvious quirks that the computer did exhibit on occasion. See, for example: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/watson-does-well-and-not/, which analyzes the prodigious strengths the program displayed, as well as describing its few weak spots.
I am afraid that the computer is so good at answering Trivia question that the contest isn’t turning into much of a drama. (It is turning into a great promo, though, for the IBM Watson Research lab.)
However, it remains a challenge of mythic proportions, which is very cool. Like John Henry, the steel-driving man vs. a steam-powered machine, or Charlie Chaplin trapped inside the assembly line in “Modern Times.” On Ray Kurzweil’s web site (he is the author of “The Singularity is Near”), I can almost hear the champagne glasses clinking.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Monitoring SQL Server: the OS Wait stats DMV

This is the 2nd post in a series on SQL Server performance monitoring, emphasizing the use of key Dynamic Management View. The series starts here : OS Waits  The consensus among SQL Server performance experts is that the best place to start looking for performance problems is the OS Wait stats from the sys.dm_os_wait_stats DMV. Whenever it is running, the SQL Server database Engine dispatches worker threads from a queue of ready tasks that it services in a round-robin fashion. (There is evidently some ordering of the queue based on priority –background tasks with lower priority that defer to foreground tasks with higher priority.) The engine records the specific wait reason for each task waiting for service in the queue and also accumulates the Wait Time (in milliseconds) for each Wait reason. These Waits and Wait Time statistics accumulate at the database level and reported via the sys.dm_os_wait_stats DMV. Issuing a Query like the following on one of my SQL Server test mac
Post a Comment
Read more

Memory Ballooning in Hyper-V

The previous post in this series discussed the various Hyper-V Dynamic Memory configuration options. Ballooning Removing memory from a guest machine while it is running is a bit more complicated than adding memory to it, which makes use of a hardware interface that the Windows OS supports. One factor that makes removing memory from a guest machine difficult is that the Hyper-V hypervisor does not gather the kind of memory usage data that would enable it to select guest machine pages that are good candidates for removal. The hypervisor’s virtual memory capabilities are limited to maintaining the second level page tables needed to translate Guest Virtual addresses to valid machine memory addresses. Because the hypervisor does not maintain any memory usage information that could be used, for example, to identify which of a guest machine’s physical memory pages have been accessed recently, when Guest Physical memory needs to be removed from a partition, it uses ballooning, which transfe
Post a Comment
Read more

Hyper-V Architecture: Intercepts, interrupts and Hypercalls

Intercepts, interrupts and Hypercalls Three interfaces exist that allow for interaction and communication between the hypervisor, the Root partition and the guest partitions: intercepts, interrupts, and the direct Hypercall interface. These interfaces are necessary for the virtualization scheme to function properly, and their usage accounts for much of the overhead virtualization adds to the system. Hyper-V measures and reports on the rate these different interfaces are used, which is, of course, workload dependent. Frankly, the measurements that show the rate that the hypervisor processes interrupts and Hypercalls is seldom of interest outside the Microsoft developers working on Hyper-V performance itself. But these measurements do provide insight into the Hyper-V architecture and can help us understand how the performance of the applications running on guest machines is impacted due to virtualization. Figure 3 is a graph showing these three major sources of virtualization overhead
Post a Comment
Read more