I agree. I can't remember the percentage of bad ids by witnesses but it's scary.

This will create reinforcement for dubious identifications by witnesses who will get locked into agreeing with the infallible computer.

I used to watch movies with explicit sexual content before going to bed and had a lot of trouble. Ever since I switched to reading Slashdot before turning out the light, it's been no problem.

It's in today's New York Times, a short story in the Bits section about a Congressman who did it. Here's the link.

If you think about it, Jeopardy's a much easier game. It's a question and answer with a 1-to-1 mapping of question to answer. If IBM didn't waste all those millions, they got really close to having 100% of the answers in the database. The hard part might have been some of the word associations to find some answers and real world knowledge to avoid bad answers. In any sports, there's no way to predict what the opponent will do strategically, nor how to discern the moods of the players and the coaches, or deal with slips and errors. How is this coaching Watson figure out who was hung over or sore from too much sex? Or who was madder than hell that day? How is all the data about the way a basketball bounces going to help?

There's an interesting take on how this new item was sort of buried in the newspaper here.

Because you're dead right in this case.

People are not stupid. They're not going to pay that much for a subscription to the mishmash that the paper edition has to be. This newspapers and others have stars in the eyes. This former journalist makes a good argument here