arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.27459

Time Capsule of Testable Human Knowledge: 41 Years of Jeopardy! in a Single Free Local Model

David Noever·Forrest McKee
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In 2011, IBM's Watson was something like a sealed capsule of its era's queryable knowledge. Its DeepQA system defeated the strongest human Jeopardy! champions, but the knowledge that let it do so lived in a curated billion-document corpus running on a cluster of POWER7 servers, frozen at build time and impossible to move or copy. We show that the same kind of artifact, a snapshot of what a culture can answer, is now portable and essentially free. We evaluate a single 9 GB open-weight model (Qwen2.5-14B, 4-bit) against the complete open Jeopardy! clue dataset, 529,939 clues across all 41 broadcast seasons from 1984 to 2025. To our knowledge this is the first time a model has been run over the full corpus. The 41 years mark only how long the questions were collected. What they test is far older and broader: the accumulated body of human general knowledge a culture considers worth knowing, from ancient history and dead languages to science, literature, and geography, with a verified answer for every item. The model answers 67.0% of all clues under a strict forced-response protocol with exact and fuzzy matching, and exceeds 85% on factoid categories. We treat training-data exposure as something both systems share rather than a flaw unique to language models. Watson's case is in fact the more extreme one. Its corpus was assembled to contain Jeopardy answers and it was tuned on past clues, and it could not answer anything outside that curated distribution. The decisive test is whether a model can answer clues that did not exist when it was built. On clues aired after its training cutoff, the local model holds 65% and Claude Opus 4.8 holds 95%, while Watson by construction scores zero. The capability survives the move from a server room to a file you could seal in a time capsule, and unlike Watson it is not frozen to its own moment.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

David Noever, Forrest McKee. 2026-06-16. Time Capsule of Testable Human Knowledge: 41 Years of Jeopardy! in a Single Free Local Model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27459

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Meta-ethics and AI: exploring the novel meta-ethical questions in the era of AI

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI), the landscape of meta-ethics, which has largely centred on human ethics, faces pressures that may significantly reconfigure it. In particular, if future AI systems were to exhibit sufficiently integrated capacities for moral reasoning, moral intentionality, and moral reflection, novel meta-ethical questions would arise concerning what I call "AI's own ethics", as distinct from ethical principles merely imposed on AI by human designers. This paper offers a conditional and methodological framework for identifying the questions that would emerge if such AI systems were to arise. On that basis, the paper distinguishes four domains of meta-ethical inquiry in the era of AI: questions about the nature of human ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of human ethics from the AI perspective; and questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the AI perspective. The paper then considers how some existing mainstream meta-ethical theories (such as cognitivism and non-cognitivism, error theory and success theory, relativism, and objective realism) might illuminate these domains, while arguing that many familiar human-centred formulations of those theories may not transfer straightforwardly to AI cases without substantial revision. The overall conclusion is that the emergence of AI's own ethics would place significant pressure on current frameworks and may require substantial refinement, reconstruction, or reconceptualisation.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

AI Morbidity and Mortality: A Framework for Clinical AI Failure Review

Clinical artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in real-world care, yet existing safety mechanisms are poorly suited to reconstructing and learning from individual AI-related errors and near-misses. Aggregate model monitoring can identify performance changes, and traditional patient safety reporting can capture adverse events, but neither is designed to explain how risk emerges across the interaction among AI systems, clinicians, workflows, and institutional controls. We propose AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M), a structured, blameless framework for case-based review of clinical AI failures. The framework combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation and investigator-level reconstruction, tool-in-loop attribution, and corrective-action tracking. Each event is classified across four linked dimensions: Trigger - Mechanism - Clinical Pathway - Corrective Action, separating the condition that exposed a vulnerability from the process that produced risk, its consequence for care, and the remediation assigned. We demonstrate the framework using five illustrative outpatient medication and clinical decision-support cases; two clinician reviewers independently applied all four classification axes and reached agreement across all 20 axis-level classifications. AI M&M is intended to complement, rather than replace, model monitoring, patient safety reporting, and regulatory oversight by converting individual AI-in-workflow failures into actionable institutional learning. Prospective evaluation across institutions, AI systems, and clinical settings is needed.

cs.AI↗