 |


|
Home - Viewing one post

Watson and the Barometer


An op-ed I wrote that runs in today's Wall Street Journal.
In the weeks since IBM’s computer,
Watson, thrashed two flesh-and-blood champions in the quiz show “Jeopardy!,”
human intelligence has been punching back—at least on blogs and opinion
pages. Watson doesn’t “know” anything, experts say. It doesn’t laugh
at jokes, cannot carry on a conversation, has no sense of self, and commits
bloopers no human would consider. ( Toronto , a U.S. city?) What’s more,
it’s horribly inefficient, requiring a roomful of computers just to match
what we carry between our ears. And it probably would not have won without
its inhuman speed on the buzzer.
This is all enough to make you
feel reinvigorated to be human. But focusing on Watson’s shortcomings
misses the point. It risks distracting people from the transformation that
Watson all but announced on its “Jeopardy!” debut: These question-answering
machines will soon be working alongside us in offices and laboratories,
and forcing us to make adjustments in what we learn and how we think. Watson
is an early sighting of a highly disruptive force.
The key is to regard these computers
not as human wannabes but rather as powerful tools, ones that can handle
jobs currently held by people. The “intelligence” of the tools matters
little. What counts is the information they deliver. In our history of
making tools, we have long adjusted to the disruptions they cause. Imagine
an Italian town in the 17th century. Perhaps there’s one man who has a
special sense for the weather. Let’s call him Luigi. Using his magnificent
brain, he picks up on signals—changes in the wind, certain odors, perhaps
the flight paths of birds or noises coming from the barn. And he spreads
word through the town that rain will be coming in two days, or that a cold
front might freeze the crops. Luigi is a valuable member of society.
Along comes a traveling vendor
who carries a new instrument invented in 1643 by Evangelista Torricelli.
It’s a barometer, and it predicts the weather about as well as Luigi.
It’s certainly not as smart as him, if it can be called smart at all.
It has no sense of self, is deaf to the animals in the barn, blind to the
flight patterns of birds. Yet it comes up with valuable information.
In a world with barometers, Luigi
and similar weather savants must find other work for their fabulous minds.
Perhaps using the new tool, they can deepen their analysis of weather patterns,
keep careful records and then draw conclusions about optimal farming techniques.
They might become consultants. Maybe some of them drop out of the weather
business altogether. The new tool creates both displacement and economic
opportunity. It forces people to reconsider how they use their heads.
The same is true of Watson and
the coming generation of question-answering machines. We can carry on interesting
discussions about how “smart” they are or aren’t. But it’s academic.
They make sense of complex questions in English and fetch answers, scoring
each one for the machines’ level of confidence in it. When asked if Watson
can “think,” David Ferrucci, IBM’s chief scientist on the “Jeopardy!”
team, responds: “Can a submarine swim?”
As these computers make their way
into law offices, pharmaceutical labs and hospitals, people who currently
make a living by answering questions must adjust. They’ll have to add
value in ways that machines cannot. This raises questions not just for
individuals but for entire societies. How do we educate students for a
labor market in which machines answer a growing percentage of the questions?
How do we create curricula for uniquely human skills, such as generating
original ideas, cracking jokes, carrying on meaningful dialogue? How can
such lessons be scored and standardized?
These are the challenges before
us. They’re similar, in a sense, to what we’ve been facing with globalization.
Again we will find ourselves grappling with a new colleague and competitor.
This time around, it’s a machine. We should scrutinize that tool, focusing
on the questions it fails to answer. Its struggles represent a road map
for our own cognitive migration. We must go where computers like Watson
cannot.
|


|

|


|
 |






Kirkus Reviews - https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/stephen-baker/the-boost/

LibraryJournal - Library Journal

Booklist Reviews - David Pitt

Locus - Paul di Filippo

read more reviews



Prequel to The Boost: Dark Site
- December 3, 2014

The Boost: an excerpt
- April 15, 2014

My horrible Superbowl weekend, in perspective
- February 3, 2014

My coming novel: Boosting human cognition
- May 30, 2013

Why Nate Silver is never wrong
- November 8, 2012

The psychology behind bankers' hatred for Obama
- September 10, 2012

"Corporations are People": an op-ed
- August 16, 2011

Wall Street Journal excerpt: Final Jeopardy
- February 4, 2011

Why IBM's Watson is Smarter than Google
- January 9, 2011

Rethinking books
- October 3, 2010

The coming privacy boom
- August 17, 2010

The appeal of virtual
- May 18, 2010





|