Ferrucci's explanation of Watson's reasoning is very interesting. But the article quickly descends into marketing. How should this mistake make us any MORE confident about Watson's utility as a diagnostic aid? I'd suggest that its performance already indicates that it has an excellent grasp of uncertainty. Furthermore, an optimal betting strategy in Jeopardy is completely trivial compared to the content of the contest itself, so complementing that aspect of its performance is sort of condescending.
It makes him more confident because Watson didn't know the answer, but knew it didn't know the answer. In the context of a diagnostic aid, Watson wouldn't provide an answer.
Comments
Ferrucci's explanation of Watson's reasoning is very interesting. But the article quickly descends into marketing. How should this mistake make us any MORE confident about Watson's utility as a diagnostic aid? I'd suggest that its performance already indicates that it has an excellent grasp of uncertainty. Furthermore, an optimal betting strategy in Jeopardy is completely trivial compared to the content of the contest itself, so complementing that aspect of its performance is sort of condescending.
It makes him more confident because Watson didn't know the answer, but knew it didn't know the answer. In the context of a diagnostic aid, Watson wouldn't provide an answer.