Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Overstates the Case Of the Testy A.I.
mbeckman writes: According to a WSJ article titled "Artificial Intelligence machine gets testy with programmer," a Google computer program using a database of movie scripts supposedly "lashed out" at a human researcher who was repeatedly asking it to explain morality. After several apparent attempts to politely fend off the researcher, the AI ends the conversation with "I'm not in the mood for a philosophical debate." This, says the WSJ, illustrates how Google scientists are "teaching computers to mimic some of the ways a human brain works."
As any AI researcher can tell you, this is utter nonsense. Humans have no idea how the human, or any other brain, works, so we can hardly teach a machine how brains work. At best, Google is programming (not teaching) a computer to mimic the conversation of humans under highly constrained circumstances. And the methods used have nothing to do with true cognition.
AI hype to the public has gotten progressively more strident in recent years, misleading lay people into believing researchers are much further along than they really are — by orders of magnitude. I'd love to see legitimate A.I. researchers condemn this kind of hucksterism.
As any AI researcher can tell you, this is utter nonsense. Humans have no idea how the human, or any other brain, works, so we can hardly teach a machine how brains work. At best, Google is programming (not teaching) a computer to mimic the conversation of humans under highly constrained circumstances. And the methods used have nothing to do with true cognition.
AI hype to the public has gotten progressively more strident in recent years, misleading lay people into believing researchers are much further along than they really are — by orders of magnitude. I'd love to see legitimate A.I. researchers condemn this kind of hucksterism.
Does your book have dinosaurs and hot android sex? I don't just read anything, you know. I have my standards.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'd love to see legitimate A.I. researchers condemn this kind of hucksterism.
I'd like to see legitimate A.I.s condemn this kind of hucksterism, myself.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
You seem like someone informed. You don't belong here is more like it.
I would argue that the process we have gone through here is a demonstration true intelligence at work.
The original reporter looked at the article, didn't understand a piece of it and asked an intern specializing in technology what this was about.
The intern couldn't be bothered, saw that it was a computer responding to human input and said it was "Artificial Intelligence".
The submitter read the article and keyed on the comment about this being a machine learning, which they feel is impossible.
Most /.ers (me included) responded to the submision and railed on about the ignorance of the media and the great unwashed.
One poster actually read TFA and pointed out that it has nothing to do with the article, submission and most comments.
I don't know how the hell we expect to create software that follows a process like this.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
here's how the AI machine got to "I have no time for a philosophical argument." --
case
1:
2:
3:
4:
else
there is not a testy machine here. there is a testy programmer. the crash-out value is always "I have no time for a philosophical argument." no matter what you type into the box. period.
and yet, the code was smarter than you...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?