Slashdot Mirror
New IBM Robot Holds Its Own In a Debate With a Human (nbcnews.com)
PolygamousRanchKid shares a report: The human brain may be the ultimate super computer, but artificial intelligence is catching up so fast, it can now hold a substantive debate with a human, according to audience feedback. IBM's Project Debater made its public debut in San Francisco Monday afternoon, where it squared off against Noa Ovadia, the 2016 Israeli debate champion and in a second debate, Dan Zafrir, a nationally renowned debater in Israel. The AI is the latest grand challenge from IBM, which previously created Deep Blue, technology that beat chess champion Garry Kasparov and Watson, which bested humans on the game show Jeopardy.
In its first public outing, Project Debater turned out to be a formidable opponent, scanning the hundreds of millions of newspaper and journal articles in its memory to quickly synthesize an argument on a topic and position it was assigned on the spot. "Project Debater could be the ultimate fact-based sounding board without the bias that often comes from humans," said Arvind Krishna, director of IBM Research. An audience survey taken before and after each debate found that Project Debater better enriched the audience's knowledge as it argued in favor of subsidies for space exploration and in favor of telemedicine, but that the human debaters did a better job delivering their speeches.
The AI isn't trained on topics -- it's trained on the art of debate. For the most part, Project Debater spoke in natural language, choosing the same words and sentence structures as a native English speaker. It even dropped the odd joke, but with the expected robotic delivery. IBM's engineers know the AI isn't perfect. Just like humans, it makes mistakes and at times, repeats itself. However, the company believes it could have a broad impact in the future as people now have to be more skeptical as they sort out fact and fiction. "Project Debater must adapt to human rationale and propose lines of argument that people can follow," Krishna said in a blog post. "In debate, AI must learn to navigate our messy, unstructured human world as it is -- not by using a pre-defined set of rules, as in a board game."
In its first public outing, Project Debater turned out to be a formidable opponent, scanning the hundreds of millions of newspaper and journal articles in its memory to quickly synthesize an argument on a topic and position it was assigned on the spot. "Project Debater could be the ultimate fact-based sounding board without the bias that often comes from humans," said Arvind Krishna, director of IBM Research. An audience survey taken before and after each debate found that Project Debater better enriched the audience's knowledge as it argued in favor of subsidies for space exploration and in favor of telemedicine, but that the human debaters did a better job delivering their speeches.
The AI isn't trained on topics -- it's trained on the art of debate. For the most part, Project Debater spoke in natural language, choosing the same words and sentence structures as a native English speaker. It even dropped the odd joke, but with the expected robotic delivery. IBM's engineers know the AI isn't perfect. Just like humans, it makes mistakes and at times, repeats itself. However, the company believes it could have a broad impact in the future as people now have to be more skeptical as they sort out fact and fiction. "Project Debater must adapt to human rationale and propose lines of argument that people can follow," Krishna said in a blog post. "In debate, AI must learn to navigate our messy, unstructured human world as it is -- not by using a pre-defined set of rules, as in a board game."
So, it scans human-generated content, and then builds a plausible sounding argument to support whatever position you give it.
This thing is going to cause a lot of unemployment in politics.
This is a cool project, but the article is utterly useless without a transcript.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is no "AI" on this planet and this thing is just a collection of dumb reflexes that give the appearance of an intelligent agent.
And so are you.
Of course, you can argue otherwise, but then the AI can make such an argument as well, and will likely do a better job at it (according to the article).
So how should I determine which stream of electronic communication was generated by "an intelligent agent" and which one by "a collection of dumb reflexes"?
The most logical conclusion is that there's not much of a difference.
Please define "actually knowing." The machine appears to have sifted through information, extracted bits relevant to the topic, and then presented arguments supporting its position. At some level, it does know its topic. What it lacks is a value judgement of whether it cares about this position or not. That value judgement seems to me to be a critical part of calling it sentient, but it does seem to know the topic. In many ways, the machine knew more about the topic than the human it was debating given the amount of data that it had absorbed and organized internally into information.
Orange-bot Translation: "Fake bot, totally rigged. Crooked cheaters knew question list ahead of time. IBM is total snake oil, believe me! If it really were smart, it would do something important, like build a wall and make evil Canada pay for it. Chess is for low-energy losers; audience snores. Total Zee's, so sad."
Table-ized A.I.