Much like how computers play chess, reducing the algorithm into “crunchable” elements can simulate the way humans do things in the result even though the computer’s method is entirely different. If the result—the chess move, the Jeopardy answer—is all that matters, it’s a success. If how the result is achieved matters more, I’m not so sure. For example, Deep Blue had no real impact on chess or science despite the hype surrounding its sporting achievement in defeating me. If Watson’s skills can be translated into something useful, something groundbreaking, that is the test. If all it can do is beat humans on a game show Watson is just a passing entertainment akin to the wind-up automata of the 18th century.

Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess champion who sparred with IBM’s Deep Blue in 1997, ponders last week’s Jeopardy! contest between IBM’s Deep Blue and champions Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter.

Read the rest at The Atlantic.

(via theatlantic)