An urgent development came across in this morning's NY Times, and it was something so global and personally incendiary that I could not let even a day go by without commenting.
No, this is not about swine flu...which based on what I've read seems close enough to the normal flu that I'm not personally concerned.
This story, is about recent developments in artificial intelligence. Many of you may remember IBM scientists proudly building a computer capable of besting the world's most prominent chess masters.
Well, those bastards at IBM are still at work.
"I.B.M. plans to announce Monday that it is in the final stages of completing a computer program to compete against human “Jeopardy!” contestants. If the program beats the humans, the field of artificial intelligence will have made a leap forward."
The gauntlet has been thrown down...they're building a Jeopardy-bot that they think is capable of beating Jeopardy players.
Now, I find this disturbing on two levels.
One level is my inherent feelings towards robots. I've made this point several times, and at the risk of repeating myself, my warning remains the same.
If we keep building better robots, they will invariably move to kill all humanity. Hollywood figured this out years ago, and the geniuses down at IBM, MIT, the Pentagon and other think factories can't shake off visions of helpful and dutiful robot slaves cleaning our houses, fighting our wars, and sexing up our various lonelyhearts.
People! This is not realistic! The robots WILL turn on us! I'm suspicious enough of these Predator drones, but support them only because they're controlled by humans in a video game-like scenario (which in an odd coincidence, is exactly like the scene from Toys). Anyway, a robot that can answer trivia questions is only a quick jump away from slicing all of our faces off to protect his or her robo-children. In this way, the Jeopardy-bot scares me.
But there's another level on which I take offense to this supposed Jeopardy-bot, and that's as a former contestant on the show.
If you IBM programmers design a robot that can answer all the questions more capably than a human, then where does that leave someone like me?!? Where does my value add go?!?
Now I know how a Ford line worker must have felt the first time he saw a robot arm bolt the front quarter panel onto a Taurus!
But I will not go quietly into trivia oblivion. To those designers at IBM, I say, bring on your creation, your Frankentrivia abomination. I personally would welcome the opportunity to challenge your Jeopardy-bot, and would relish the chance to soundly defeat your godless monster at categories ranging from English Literature to the most potent of potables!
I will do whatever I have to to ensure the robot's defeat and score a victory for all those who would rather have a filthy carpet than a robotic vacuum cleaner, who would rather have a book of maps than an automatic GPS navigator, or who would prefer a Playboy magazine to the most advanced freaky robot sex toy the Japanese have ever unveiled!
You, Jeopardy-bot, will have to pry my Jeopardy buzzer from my cold dead hands!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Thoughts on the Value of NFL Draft Picks
A big NFL trade got me thinking recently, why don't we see more trades in the NFL? And more specifically, why don't we see more trades of draft picks?
This past Friday the Eagles acquired Jason Peters, an offensive lineman from the Buffalo Bills, for a couple draft picks. Peters has been named to the Pro Bowl multiple times, but lots of people claim he was overrated last season. That's really not my point of emphasis here, I'm frankly excited that the Eagles were able to get someone who's supposedly very good and just wanted to get the hell out of Buffalo.
Anyway, what I've been trying to wrap my head around is why teams don't trade their draft picks more if some of them are great drafters of talent and others are so terrible.
While there's no proven methodology for evaluating draft skill, common wisdom is that certain teams (Patriots) are really good at finding and drafting good NFL players while others (Lions) are pretty terrible.
Well, if you're terrible at drafting players...why the hell are you holding onto and using draft picks that other teams should be willing to pay for in the form of current players?
If some all powerful entity came out of the clouds and gave me a brand new John Deere tractor...what would I, a farming novice, do with it?
Would I...
A) Sell it to the highest bidder...one probably dressed in overalls?
or
B) Insist on using it myself, driving it straight down Michigan Avenue and sowing the fields of Millennium Park? (I'm not sure with what...sorghum? Do people grow that? See...I'd be a terrible farmer)
Anyway, obviously I would choose A. I have no skill at farming, and would have no use for a tractor.
Hey Detroit Lions...you can't farm for sh*t!!!
Yet they and other teams like them insist on using their draft picks and taking players, a disproportionate number of which will eventually be bagging groceries.
Would it not be in their best interest to look at the draft objectively, realize they don't know how to predict who will do well at the professional level, and make trades to bring in players (probably younger ones) who have shown exactly that?
Why would you not do that? Some theories...
#1 - Two words...Tom Brady. Just like every other problem of the modern world, it can be traced directly to the the biggest jerk in the game today. When the Patriots took Brady late in the draft, they effectively turned every draft pick into a lottery ticket, with every pick a potential Hall of Famer. (Of course, Brady isn't the first home run late round pick, just the most commonly cited example) Since every GM sees the overpromoted examples of late round successes, they think that every one could be their ticket to the Lombardi Trophy (or at least the playoffs)
#2 - There is definitely the potential for the lemons problem. Any existing players that good drafting teams would be willing to give up would clearly raise concerns from the poor drafting teams. Why would a good drafting team give up a player for a draft pick if they really like him? This is why I think the poorly drafting teams would have to overpay to get players
#3 - The teams that stink at drafting don't just make mistakes in evaluating potential players, they also make mistakes evaluating their own capabilities. Maybe they make excuses for poor drafting (e.g., injuries, coaching)...but I'd wager that like stock pickers, MBA students, and every other group of people ever sampled, NFL GM's are each pretty sure that they are better than the average GM at evaluating talent.
One other thing I was thinking about. It's pretty clear that draft picks, especially as they get later in the draft, won't pay off in the short term (if at all). It's also clear that every year, there are several teams with executives that come into the season under pressure to deliver a winning season. Sports media members love to speculate on the GM's on the 'Hot Seat' that need to win or get fired...it's usually pretty obvious.
There executives should be motivated to make their teams better...immediately...to save their jobs. As such, shouldn't these GM's be willing to trade their draft picks and/or younger undeveloped players for mature players (and therefore, potential wins)?
That last thought basically means that if I were Andy Reid or Jeff Fisher or someone with great job security, I would call the Vikings or the Saints or someone if I wanted more draft picks right now
This past Friday the Eagles acquired Jason Peters, an offensive lineman from the Buffalo Bills, for a couple draft picks. Peters has been named to the Pro Bowl multiple times, but lots of people claim he was overrated last season. That's really not my point of emphasis here, I'm frankly excited that the Eagles were able to get someone who's supposedly very good and just wanted to get the hell out of Buffalo.
Anyway, what I've been trying to wrap my head around is why teams don't trade their draft picks more if some of them are great drafters of talent and others are so terrible.
While there's no proven methodology for evaluating draft skill, common wisdom is that certain teams (Patriots) are really good at finding and drafting good NFL players while others (Lions) are pretty terrible.
Well, if you're terrible at drafting players...why the hell are you holding onto and using draft picks that other teams should be willing to pay for in the form of current players?
If some all powerful entity came out of the clouds and gave me a brand new John Deere tractor...what would I, a farming novice, do with it?
Would I...
A) Sell it to the highest bidder...one probably dressed in overalls?
or
B) Insist on using it myself, driving it straight down Michigan Avenue and sowing the fields of Millennium Park? (I'm not sure with what...sorghum? Do people grow that? See...I'd be a terrible farmer)
Anyway, obviously I would choose A. I have no skill at farming, and would have no use for a tractor.
Hey Detroit Lions...you can't farm for sh*t!!!
Yet they and other teams like them insist on using their draft picks and taking players, a disproportionate number of which will eventually be bagging groceries.
Would it not be in their best interest to look at the draft objectively, realize they don't know how to predict who will do well at the professional level, and make trades to bring in players (probably younger ones) who have shown exactly that?
Why would you not do that? Some theories...
#1 - Two words...Tom Brady. Just like every other problem of the modern world, it can be traced directly to the the biggest jerk in the game today. When the Patriots took Brady late in the draft, they effectively turned every draft pick into a lottery ticket, with every pick a potential Hall of Famer. (Of course, Brady isn't the first home run late round pick, just the most commonly cited example) Since every GM sees the overpromoted examples of late round successes, they think that every one could be their ticket to the Lombardi Trophy (or at least the playoffs)
#2 - There is definitely the potential for the lemons problem. Any existing players that good drafting teams would be willing to give up would clearly raise concerns from the poor drafting teams. Why would a good drafting team give up a player for a draft pick if they really like him? This is why I think the poorly drafting teams would have to overpay to get players
#3 - The teams that stink at drafting don't just make mistakes in evaluating potential players, they also make mistakes evaluating their own capabilities. Maybe they make excuses for poor drafting (e.g., injuries, coaching)...but I'd wager that like stock pickers, MBA students, and every other group of people ever sampled, NFL GM's are each pretty sure that they are better than the average GM at evaluating talent.
One other thing I was thinking about. It's pretty clear that draft picks, especially as they get later in the draft, won't pay off in the short term (if at all). It's also clear that every year, there are several teams with executives that come into the season under pressure to deliver a winning season. Sports media members love to speculate on the GM's on the 'Hot Seat' that need to win or get fired...it's usually pretty obvious.
There executives should be motivated to make their teams better...immediately...to save their jobs. As such, shouldn't these GM's be willing to trade their draft picks and/or younger undeveloped players for mature players (and therefore, potential wins)?
That last thought basically means that if I were Andy Reid or Jeff Fisher or someone with great job security, I would call the Vikings or the Saints or someone if I wanted more draft picks right now
Monday, April 13, 2009
ESPN Chicago
Surfing over to ESPN.com this afternoon, one of their front page stories was the launch of a new regional site, ESPN-Chicago. I hadn't heard anything about the development of a regional portal for Chicago fans (maybe I would have if I was a Chicago fan myself) but found the news to be really interesting.
This site is going to compete directly with Comcast, who runs a regional sports network in Chicago, as well as local sports media like the Tribune (do people read that here? I have no idea, but it's got a large building near my apartment, so I'll assume so).
I'm curious to see who can attract more attention.
On one hand, you have the incumbent media entities, stations and reporters who make their living focusing solely on the Chicago sports world.
On the other side, a new portal with the support of a huge multinational corporation.
Comcast has its own Chicago sports television network that serves to drive traffic to its website. But if it's anything like the CSN Philadelphia web site, it doesn't have a lot of great content and has a pretty meh design and layout.
Looking at ESPN Chicago, it's layout is most definitely slick (as well it should be, piggybacking off of ESPN's main page design).
So maybe Comcast/Tribune/whomever has an advantage in that their reporters are better, or more experienced, or have better connections. Looking at the roster of contributors for ESPN Chicago, these guys seem to be Chicagoans as well, though I'd assume they're lacking the stature of established beat/TV reporters who've been in Chicago a while.
Further, I would guess, based purely on my own web surfing habits, that ESPN can drive a ton of traffic to this new portal relative to the incumbent players. While I personally read articles from my hometown newspaper on their web site every day...I never go to Comcast's site. With that said, I'll go to ESPN.com's main page at least a dozen times a day. Something tells me I'd click through pretty often if they had a Philadelphia sports portal.
I would assume the new ESPN site will get huge Chicago traffic, and demonstrate that national media players who run successful internet enterprises can pick up niche audiences with regionalized perspectives. Part of this is based on my experience watching regional providers stink, or miss plenty of opportunities to build bigger internet audiences.
(We could go back to when I tried to pitch philly.com on my idea for a Flyers web blog to complement their coverage in 2003...now that it's been 5 years, they've finally launched blogs following all the major sports...not that I'm bitter)
With all that said, I still think it will be even more interesting as players battle on extracting value from an even bigger crown jewel, live broadcasting rights. Given the fact that sports leagues themselves are launching/have launched networks (NFL, NBA, MLB...etc.) and given that national networks want broadcasting rights to remain relevant, and given that regional players largely have the incumbent broadcast position in individual markets...I'm very interested in seeing what happens
This site is going to compete directly with Comcast, who runs a regional sports network in Chicago, as well as local sports media like the Tribune (do people read that here? I have no idea, but it's got a large building near my apartment, so I'll assume so).
I'm curious to see who can attract more attention.
On one hand, you have the incumbent media entities, stations and reporters who make their living focusing solely on the Chicago sports world.
On the other side, a new portal with the support of a huge multinational corporation.
Comcast has its own Chicago sports television network that serves to drive traffic to its website. But if it's anything like the CSN Philadelphia web site, it doesn't have a lot of great content and has a pretty meh design and layout.
Looking at ESPN Chicago, it's layout is most definitely slick (as well it should be, piggybacking off of ESPN's main page design).
So maybe Comcast/Tribune/whomever has an advantage in that their reporters are better, or more experienced, or have better connections. Looking at the roster of contributors for ESPN Chicago, these guys seem to be Chicagoans as well, though I'd assume they're lacking the stature of established beat/TV reporters who've been in Chicago a while.
Further, I would guess, based purely on my own web surfing habits, that ESPN can drive a ton of traffic to this new portal relative to the incumbent players. While I personally read articles from my hometown newspaper on their web site every day...I never go to Comcast's site. With that said, I'll go to ESPN.com's main page at least a dozen times a day. Something tells me I'd click through pretty often if they had a Philadelphia sports portal.
I would assume the new ESPN site will get huge Chicago traffic, and demonstrate that national media players who run successful internet enterprises can pick up niche audiences with regionalized perspectives. Part of this is based on my experience watching regional providers stink, or miss plenty of opportunities to build bigger internet audiences.
(We could go back to when I tried to pitch philly.com on my idea for a Flyers web blog to complement their coverage in 2003...now that it's been 5 years, they've finally launched blogs following all the major sports...not that I'm bitter)
With all that said, I still think it will be even more interesting as players battle on extracting value from an even bigger crown jewel, live broadcasting rights. Given the fact that sports leagues themselves are launching/have launched networks (NFL, NBA, MLB...etc.) and given that national networks want broadcasting rights to remain relevant, and given that regional players largely have the incumbent broadcast position in individual markets...I'm very interested in seeing what happens
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)