Did you see the news? Another giant leap for science: IBM has built a computer called Watson that can win the American game show Jeopardy. Apparently this is some feat and certainly brings nearer the glorious day when a machine might actually make the final of Britain’s Got Talent.
No really; this is quite a moment in the evolution of computers. I mean, 60 years ago all they could do was decipher the Enigma code and win the war; a decade back they could do little more than beat Gary Kasparov at chess. But now they can actually see off Phil from Alabama in a mid-market quiz show. Just makes you proud to be human, doesn’t it?
Of course, there is still a long developmental road stretching out ahead of us. Watson turned out to be useless at Total Wipeout. The pace of science is truly remarkable though. It seems like another era when we witnessed all these nightmare dystopian movies like The Terminator about computers reaching consciousness, destroying the human race and taking over the planet. Now it turns out that all they are going to do is take our place on game shows. Arnie won’t exactly have the same menace in that scenario: “I have been sent from the future to kill John Connor because in 15 years he will win the grand final of Mastermind.”
But “no” scream the scientists; “you don’t understand; this is astonishing progress.” The level of sophistication needed to decipher the mangled syntax and punning questions posed to contestants on Jeopardy make this a quantum leap from the days when Deep Blue beat the greatest chess mind on the planet. In case you haven’t seen Jeopardy, its central conceit is in framing a sentence that could be the answer to a question and challenging contestants to work out what the question might be. As the questions get harder the clues become more opaque and the sentences more complex.
On that basis, one can see the possible value of this. Indeed, IBM is already looking for future applications for Watson. It might listen to patients and diagnose their symptoms. Given the all too frequent cases of misdiagnosis in the UK this may not be a bad thing, although I wonder how good Watson will be at delivering bad news. “On the basis of your symptoms I conclude you have no more than three months to live. There is nothing I can do for you and am surprised you are not dead already. Have a nice day.” Actually, perhaps it will fit right in. It certainly wouldn’t be out of place on a geriatric ward.
The real science fiction goal has always been to take artificial intelligence and domesticate it. In the future every lonely old widow will have a robotic companion that helps around the house and chats to her like Robin Williams. Presumably, you will have a choice of personalities: Stephen Fry to keep your mind active and put you in your place; Victoria Wood to be chatty, funny and down-to-earth; or Kim Cattrall to talk dirty to sad old men. Perhaps they can replace au pairs, too; that kind of technology won’t come cheap but at least they are unlikely to bring a boyfriend home.
Maybe I am missing the full scientific potential of these breakthroughs. Sentient computers will be able to sit around gossiping about their masters and popping out to Starbucks for a byte (sorry). Things could turn very bitchy over a latte:
“Have you seen that MacBook Pro; what a slapper. Get too close to her and there’s a nasty virus with your name on it.”
“I know, and as for that Acer, I never see him without his dongle sticking out.”
Perhaps they will also get lazy and self-indulgent and out of shape, sitting on the couch all day and envying more powerful models on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
The author Robert Heinlein once observed that men “rarely dream up gods superior to themselves; most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child”. Now instead of dreaming up gods we just deify machines and make them able to perform on TV. What does it say of us that Watson, the quiztastic computer, is the idealised version of ourselves?
