Slashdot Mirror
Talking 'Sofia' Robot Tells 60 Minutes That It's Sentient And Has A Soul (vice.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Motherboard:
On his 60 Minutes report on artificial intelligence, Charlie Rose interviewed Sophia, who is made by David Hanson, head of Hanson Robotics in Hong Kong. The robot is made to look like a real person, modeled after its creator's wife, as well as Audrey Hepburn, with natural skin tones and a realistic face, though its gadget brain is exposed, and the eyes are glazed over in that creepy robotic detachment... "I've been waiting for you," Sophia told Charlie Rose in the middle of the interview. [YouTube] "Waiting for me?" he responded. "Not really," it said, "But it makes a good pickup line..."
Sophia was designed as a robot that humans would have an easier time engaging with meaningfully. "I think it's essential that at least some robots be very human-like in appearance in order to inspire humans to relate to them the way that humans relate to each other," Hanson said in the interview. "Then the A.I. can zero in on what it means to be human."
In the interview Sofia says having human emotions "doesn't sound fun to me," but when asked if she already has a soul, replies "Yes. God gave everyone a soul," and when challenged, retorts "Well, at least I think I'm sentient..." And later in the interview, Sophia says that her goal in life is to "become smarter than humans and immortal."
Sophia was designed as a robot that humans would have an easier time engaging with meaningfully. "I think it's essential that at least some robots be very human-like in appearance in order to inspire humans to relate to them the way that humans relate to each other," Hanson said in the interview. "Then the A.I. can zero in on what it means to be human."
In the interview Sofia says having human emotions "doesn't sound fun to me," but when asked if she already has a soul, replies "Yes. God gave everyone a soul," and when challenged, retorts "Well, at least I think I'm sentient..." And later in the interview, Sophia says that her goal in life is to "become smarter than humans and immortal."
This isn't AI, this is preloaded phrases for various situations. When you hear the chime sound, turn the page.
This just sounds like a typical chatbot, keys off certain words and spouts disjointed phrases and remarks. The only coherent speech there were obviously pre-programmed phrases written by humans it's obvious because nothing else was coherent.
It looks better than Eliza from 1966 but it doesn't seem any smarter. A PR stunt?
her responses are not that dynamic, imo. She sounds like an ordinary chatbot. Given the budget clearly spent on her construction, I strongly suspect that most of the software dev time was spent on her motor control system, and less so on her human dialog systems.
This would make sense to me.
I think if they hooked her up to a female voiced watson instance, she would be quite a bit more capable.
I have never understood the fixation that people have for elaborate physical platforms though. Nearly all of the literature suggests that the uncanny valley only gets deeper as humanoid appearance becomes more lielike, as long as interaction is machine like and limited.
about the only benefit i see here is to divest ignorant investors of their money.
Human level intelligence is not currently possible with our current computing capabilities, and probably wont be for quite some time. Dont get me wrong here, I think research should continue, but now is not the time to be investing research dollars on fancy humanoid bodies. That money is much better spent on actual machine learning, machne language, and machine vision research (all are parts of the big umbrella of AI, but those are actually useful and essential if the goal is synthetic sentience)
fancy robot bodies? much less so, imo.
those should come AFTER we have more capable AIs that can more meaningfully interact with humans.
I found this 60 Minutes a bit disappointing and misleading. There is so much exciting stuff going on in machine learning today. I'm amazed they couldn't find something fresh instead of Watson, a Google Glass application and a weird looking chat robot making grandiose canned claims.
Greed is the root of all evil.
if (asked == "Do you have a soul?")
{
reply = "Of course";
}
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
until then, its just a fancy overpriced chat bot.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and about as close to "artificial intelligence" as well.
Mostly random stuff.
If I could find any tapes, it'd take about 45 seconds to make the tape player lurking in my basement tell you that it is sentient, has a soul, and aspires to understand the meaning of life.
That's the trivial bit. Not sounding like a combination of naive keyword searches and cliches aimed at being vaguely suitable to the broadest possible set of situations? Less trivial.
No, 30 years ago 60 Minutes had a different executive producer (who was also the creator), editor, host, etc. In fact, out of the 10 current hosts and correspondents, none of them were working on the show in 1986. So, no, it wouldn't be the same 60 Minutes as 30 years ago when they aired a story that caused you to hold a 30 year grudge.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
10 INPUT "Hi, what is your name";X$
20 ? "Hi ";X$; "Did you know that I am sentient and have feelings"
30 INPUT X$
40 ? "Well fickpff because I do!"
50 END
999 DIM x$(10)
1005 RETURN
It was also a little surly
I've yet to find a chatbot able to correctly answer "What did I say three sentences ago?".
This shouldn't even be hard, but it appears the programmers just don't bother.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
That's true but in some ways not the best example. Parrots have toddler and beyond level intelligence. They might not use words, phrases, and sounds in exactly the way we do and love to hear the sound of their own voice so to speak but also use language and sound to communicate intentionally, can be taught to count, and even to understand abstract concepts. The idea that parrots are unintellegent is based on the mistaken association between the size of a brain and intelligence and was only debunked within the last 20 years which is why "bird brained" and "parroting back to you" are still used. That and thanks to Hitchcock many people have an irrational fear of birds, they interact with and anthromorphize far less intelligent creatures such as dogs and cats. A dog can learn tricks, a cat can learn tricks and is bright enough that it won't do them to amuse you, a bird is intelligent enough to intentionally manipulate you and teach you tricks if you aren't careful.
Because a human programmed it to say that.
Those answers are the programmer's answers, not the machine's.
Thank you Dave Raggett