[michaelcampbell]

> but I would not like to be the patient who discovers the medical equivalent of answering "Toronto" in the "US Cities" category, as Watson did.

Surprise, that kind of mistake happens far too frequently in the medical field now.

Why is Kasparov commenting on something so far out of his recognized area of expertise relevant anyway? I don't go to Knuth for advice on chess, nor Hawking for snarky banter on economics, etc. (Although if I had access to either of those 2, I might try it.)

[Jach]

Would Watson make that mistake happen more or less often? (Bringing in Watson can lead to blindly trusting or blindly ignoring the "stupid computer" depending on the doctor; seems like a problem with doctors rather than a lack of tools?)

> Why is Kasparov commenting on something so far out of his recognized area of expertise relevant anyway?

Isn't the asking obvious? (I won't comment on the relevance; people do and read many irrelevant things every day.) People asked for his thoughts 'cause he got beat by IBM's Deep Blue and he's had a lot of experience with computers in their relationship with chess (specifically combining humans and computers to make really strong opponents). People also asked for Ken Jennings' thoughts and AI isn't his expertise. And people recently asked Hawking for his thoughts on aliens...