CMU students get to work, play with computer Jeopardy! champion Watson
It seems only right that Watson, IBM's Jeopardy!-playing computer, should become a part of the curriculum at Carnegie Mellon University this fall.
After all, former CMU doctoral student Nico Schlaefer spent three summers working on the team that developed the computer, which beat a pair of human Jeopardy! champions in its TV debut three years ago.
CMU officials announced on Tuesday that the school will offer a computer science class, “Intelligent Information Systems featuring IBM's Watson,” in conjunction with IBM. The class will give students access to Watson's cognitive technology as they develop mobile applications for the computer.
“The home run we're looking for is to add our vision to IBM's technology to create an application that is useful and worthy of being spun off as a product,” said Eric Nyberg, a professor in CMU's Language Technologies Institute. Teaching the course with Nyberg will be Alan Black, a Language Technologies Institute professor, and Norman Sadeh, a professor in the Institute for Software Research.
Nyberg and several CMU students, including Schlaefer, collaborated with IBM on the platform Watson used to understand questions from people and search huge databases for an answer.
CMU is one of seven universities partnering with IBM on the course. The others are Ohio State University, New York University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, University of California, Berkeley, University of Michigan and University of Texas in Austin.
Debra Erdley is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.