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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

High Resolution Clocks and Timers for Performance Measurement in Windows.

Within the discipline of software performance engineering (SPE), application response time monitoring refers to the capability of instrumenting application requests, transactions and other vital interaction scenarios in order to measure their response times. There is no single, more important performance measurement than application response time, especially in the degree which the consistency and length of application response time events reflect the user experience and relate to customer satisfaction. All the esoteric measurements of hardware utilization that Perfmon revels in pale by comparison. Of course, performance engineers usually still want to be able to break down application response time into its component parts, one of which is CPU usage. Other than the Concurrency Visualizer that is packaged with the Visual Studio Profiler that was discussed in the previous post, there are few professional-grade, application response time monitoring and profiling tools that exploit the …

Why is my web app running slowly? -- Part 1.

This series of blog posts picks up on a topic I made mention of earlier, namely scalability models, where I wrote about how implicit models of application scalability often impact the kinds of performance tests that are devised to evaluate the performance of an application. As discussed in that earlier blog post, sometimes the influence of the underlying scalability model is subtle, often because the scalability model itself is implicit. In the context of performance testing, my experience is that it can be very useful to render the application’s performance and scalability model explicitly. At the very least, making your assumptions explicit opens them to scrutiny, allowing questions to be asked about their validity, for example.
The example I used in that earlier discussion was the scalability model implicit when employing stress test tools like HP LoadRunner and Soasta CloudTest against a web-based application. Load testing by successively increasing the arrival rate of customer r…

Virtual memory management in VMware: memory ballooning

This is a continuation of a series of blog posts on VMware memory management. The previous post in the series is here.


Ballooning
Ballooning is a complicated topic, so bear with me if this post is much longer than the previous ones in this series.

As described earlier, VMware installs a balloon driver inside the guest OS and signals the driver to begin to “inflate” when it begins to encounter contention for machine memory, defined as the amount of free machine memory available for new guest machine allocation requests dropping below 6%. In the benchmark example I am discussing here, the Memory Usage counter rose to 98% allocation levels and remained there for duration of the test while all four virtual guest machines were active.

Figure 7, which shows the guest machine Memory Granted counter for each guest, with an overlay showing the value of the Memory State counter reported at the end of each one-minute measurement interval, should help to clarify the state of VMware memory-managemen…