IBM's Watson AI Implanted Into a Robot, Evolves, Can Now Sense Emotions (hothardware.com)

bigwophh writes that IBM's Watson cognitive computing platform "is now more capable and human-like, especially when encapsulated in a robot body." An article from Hot Hardware reports that this week at NVIDIA's GPU Technology Conference, "We saw Watson in robot form respond to queries just like a human would, using not only speech but movement. When its dancing skills were called into question, the robot responded by showing off its Gangnam Style moves." After winning Jeopardy's million-dollar championship in 2011, Watson moved on to "more practical applications" like providing data-analyzing services for doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, and "the capabilities of what IBM has created are nothing short of amazing... Just like a real person, the underlying AI can get a read on people through movement and cognitive analysis of their speech. It can determine mood, tone, inflection, and so forth."

Comments

"...Can Now Sense Emotions"

[SeaFox]

Should have "in humans" as part of that, I misinterpreted that headline completely.

I speak for the internet when I ask:

[Gravis Zero]

Can you fuck it?

Re:I'll believe it when I see it.

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

At some point it's gonna figure out that scared humans listen to his suggestions more often than happy humans. Don't have to progress far from there and you have an evil overlord ruling it's subjects through fear.

You just described American politics.

Re:NO

[KGIII]

I don't watch a whole lot of movies unless they're documentaries but I did watch one, a recent one, and it was actually pretty good. You might like it, if you've never seen it. It's called Ex Machina and I believe it was a /.er who recommended it. If you haven't seen it then I shan't spoil it. It's about an Android that is both female and is a deep AI. It's also about her interaction with humans. What I appreciated most about it was that it was real science fiction. It left me questioning, thinking, and a choice about the impact it might have on a much larger scale.

Would that I could and I'd attempt to describe it better but it is not easy to do without telling too much of it. It's really quite good. Hmm... I guess I can say that it has nudity. There's a reason to see it, right there. On a serious note, it was quite an interesting movie and I don't say that very often.

Skynet will most likely be cute

[Z80a]

SCI-FI generally take as a rule that an "AI will never understand human emotions" and thus write em like cold emotionless machines that crush human skulls with their metallic feet, but in reality, it's probably not that hard to manipulate humans by their emotions.
Which means the Skynet probably will take the form of a friendly but horribly manipulative virtual creature that will make people commit suicide by just saying and showing the right things instead of wasting time and resource building robots.

Re: Did not "win" jeopardy

[Etherwalk]

You have no clue. The entire procedure is open records. The whole process is documented. NO ONE helped Watson once the game started. The entire team that created and set up Watson were in the audience. Watson had the ability to buzz in on its own - no help. This is a matter of public record. There is zero evidence that anything remotely shady was done for Watson to win. Educate yourself.

I'm sorry, you misinterpreted my comment. I indicated "Others knew the answers" but followed this phrase with a colon (indicating a connection to the next phrase) and then "Watson was just set up to buzz in faster than the other contestants."

This was not a statement that Watson did not produce the answers; it is a statement that he was engineered with an advantage (and the questions were too easy) such that the outcome of the game dependent not on scope of knowledge, but on the speed of buzz-in. The humans were all clicking in frustration as the machine was given the first chance to answer almost every question. It was an obviously faulty experimental design.

For everybody

[nospam007]

I use it every week to cook on weekends.

https://www.ibmchefwatson.com/...

You enter what you have in the fridge and pantry and it suggests meals to cook with fantastic combinations, that real chefs around the world are using too.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it.

[tomhath]

You just described American politics

Nothing particularly American about that, see North Korea for a better example.

Re: Did not "win" jeopardy

[religionofpeas]

Because people want to see that Watson is really smarter, rather than faster. We already know computers are faster.

Re:NO

[BasilBrush]

Of course the "intelligence" displayed by AI programs is a trick. But then the "intelligence" displayed by humans is also a trick.

For example, we believe that we make decisions with the conscious mind, but actually recent science shows that the subconcious mind makes decisions, leaving the conscious mind to make up plausible explanations for that decision, of asked. Yet the conscious mind doesn't know the real reason.

Of course you could define intelligence as the particular set of tricks that the biological brain of higher species plays. And not the set of tricks that AI computers use. But that would be constructing the definition to force the outcome you want.

Turing had the right idea. The Turing test only requires the appearance of intelligence. It doesn't try to define what's real intelligence and what's fake.

Re:NO

[Kjella]

Indeed. This thing can _fake_ certain simple things that humans can actually do. The deception is limited to simple standard-situations and is entirely shallow. It breaks down completely as soon as something unexpected happens. This thing is an automaton, no intelligence involved.

I think you underestimate how much people do that really is based in rules and training, most people aren't really doing anything groundbreaking new. And particularly in a professional context their authority to be creative is often extremely limited where they'll have to either escalate or reject things that are out of the ordinary. If you're a star chef you set your own menu, if you're a pizza chef in a chain restaurat it's all regulated right down to how many slices of pepperoni goes on a pepperoni pizza. If you want an outlet in your shower, the electrician isn't going to get creative he'll just say that's not according to code and that's that.

Maybe your car driving "automaton" only knows how to drive a car, your chef "automaton" to cook, your maid "automaton" to do housecleaning but if you keep adding the pieces I think you'll end up with a pretty slim slice that says "real" intellect.