Back to the Future with Watson

When I began my career way back in 1985, in Silicon Valley, artificial intelligence (AI) was one of the trendier technology plays.  I always had – and still have – a problem with the notion of artificial intelligence, mostly because I don’t think we can really define intelligence.  And, in fact, the AI folks in the 1980s pretty much agreed, if only reluctantly, and it did not take long for the more practical AI folks to scale back their grander talk of machine intelligence to the narrower concept of the “expert system.”  Expert systems were basically programs that included all of the known (including in the best cases probabilistically known) information about a particular field (say searching for oil) with the idea that they could then answer – to the extent current knowledge included an answer – any question about that field of enquiry. 

The venture community financed a bunch expert systems startups in the 1980s, which were premised on the idea that while machine sentience – more or less (there is not generally accepted definition of sentience) the idea that a machine could not only “manipulate” (“remember” if you are of a Platonic bent) but “create” knowledge was impractical, machine manipulation of knowledge was itself sufficient to create value, if not new knowledge.  Alas, the underlying computer technology of the time was on the whole not up to the task of creating commercially exciting machines that could outperform human experts even in relatively narrow fields, and by the early 1990s, AI and its less ambitious expert system cousins had pretty much disappeared from the commercial technology landscape. 

Which brings us to 2011, and IBM’s Watson, a computer system that more or less handily defeated the two most successful human champions of the popular game show Jeopardy.  It was quite an accomplishment, one that some observers are suggesting heralds a new era of AI research and in the not too distant future AI commercialization.  But does it? 

My own take is that Watson does not herald the re-emergence of AI, but rather the re-emergence of expert systems, this time powerful enough to be commercially useful managers of knowledge.  But managers are not creators.  Manipulating data, even vast amounts of data, accurately, more or less precisely (Watson made some humorous mistakes, for example suggesting that Toronto was a city in the United States) and blazingly fast, is not the same thing as discovering heretofore unknown information.  Watson, in other words, may be able to parse the writings of a Shakespeare, but Watson, at least the Watson I saw playing Jeopardy, did not impress me as being able to write original literature of Shakespearian proportions.  Watson is no more (or less, I think) sentient than the best expert systems of the 1980s, which is, finally, to say it is no more intelligent than those systems.

Which is a good thing.  Personally I am glad that Watson heralds a new era of expert systems that are robust enough to be useful servants of mankind.  A sentient Watson, on the other hand, would be a more problematic prospect.  How far out that is, now there is a, if not the, question….

Advertisements

About Paul A. Jones

Serial venture capital backed entrepreneur, angel investor and venture capital investor; Co-chair of the VentureBest team at Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP.
This entry was posted in Technology. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Back to the Future with Watson

  1. Will says:

    I agree with all of your points. AI is defined by the limits of our understanding of our own brains. Until we can appreciate imagination or predict the routes of the synapses in our brains, we will not be able to create machines to ‘be intelligent’. We simply will create frameworks that model what we already know (ie expert systems). Yeah, and maybe do things incredibly fast so we can be impressive. Far be it for a machine to innovate too… Sometimes I think we just need to ask ourselves this question. “What if we had the intellectual courage to admit our ignorance?” In asking this question, I get personal fuel to innovate and learn. There are still so many wonders.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s