Final Jeopardy (Alexandra Cooper Mysteries) - Linda Fairstein [75]
To be fair, the Jeopardy executives understood this issue and were committed to avoiding the problem. The writers would be kept in the dark. They wouldn’t know which of their clues and categories would be used in the Watson showdown. According to the preliminary plans, they would be writing clues for fifteen Tournament of Champions matches, and Watson would be playing only one of them. But Ferrucci didn’t think this was sufficient. One way or another they would be influenced by it, or at least they might be. From a scientific standpoint, there was no distinction between the existence and the possibility of bias. Either way, the results were compromised. Fifteen games, he said, was not a big enough set. “That’s not statistically significant.”
Epstein said that claims of bias always came up in man-machine contests, because humans always changed their behavior when faced with a machine while other humans were busy tweaking the machine. “Even in the Deep Blue chess game,” he said, “Kasparov was complaining bitterly that the IBM team cheated.” But how could a machine cheat in chess? “Nobody’s writing questions,” he said.
The concern in the chess match, Ferrucci said, was that the humans responded to Kasparov’s tactics and retuned the computer. Kasparov had already adjusted to the computer’s strategy and then found himself facing another one. “He was very offended by that,” Ferrucci said.
“So it was unfair for the machine to change its strategy,” Epstein asked, “but OK for the man to change his?”
Throughout the meal, they discussed the nature of competitions between people and machines. They weren’t new, by any stretch. But earlier in the process, they had seemed more theoretical. Now, with Jeopardy laying down the law, theory was colliding with reality.
“I have a question for you,” Epstein said at one point. “Has anyone discussed what risks Jeopardy has in this?”
“It raises interesting issues,” Ferrucci said. “One of them is, do they have a horse in the race? Do they want something in particular to happen? We don’t control anything but our machine,” he went on. “We want our machine to win. This is not a mystery. Jeopardy holds a different set of cards.”
“They want it to be entertaining,” Loughran said.
“But what does it mean for the show for the computer to win or lose?” Ferrucci asked. “What does it mean for the show if the human, let’s say, clobbers the computer? These are open questions. They’re in a tough spot, because on the one hand they have to maintain the [show’s] integrity. But at the same time, there’s a perception issue, and people might think: ‘Gee, would Jeopardy be obsolete if the computer won? Would this change the game?’”
“No way,” Loughran said.
“You don’t think so,” Ferrucci said, “but they have to be asking the question.” He paused and ate quietly for a few moments. This marketing side of the project, which made it so exciting, was also causing stress. He was spending more and more time dealing with the Jeopardy team and the PR machine and less time in the lab. He was having trouble sleeping. He turned back to Loughran. “So,” he asked, “knowing everything you know now, would you still do this project?”
“Sure,” Loughran said. “And you?”
“I’m a science guy, so I absolutely would,” Ferrucci said. He had been able to build his machine, after all, despite his concerns about how the Jeopardy match would play out. “But if I was a marketing guy,” he added, “I’m not so sure . . .”
“We’ve got some issues, but it’s fun,” Loughran said. “We’ll get through it all.”
In the following days, Ferrucci looked to buffer the science of the Jeopardy challenge from the intrusions of the marketing effort and from the carnival odds of a one-game showdown.