Now this is impressive. However, my two rules for any AI article still apply :
1) It's just an elaborate way of rearranging information with no deeper understanding or what it's doing
2) It does not have to actually become sentient to have an impact.
Or more concisely, it isn't sentient but that doesn't necessarily matter if it can produce an output comparable to an sentient, intelligent human.
The machine drew from a library of “hundreds of millions” of documents - mostly newspaper articles and academic journals - to form its responses to a topic it was not prepared for beforehand. Its performance was not without slip-ups, but those in attendance made clear their thoughts when voting on who did best. While the humans had better delivery, the group agreed, the machine offered greater substance in its arguments.
Ms Ovadia was Israel’s national debating champion in 2016, and began working with IBM a few months ago as an opponent to its machine. She told the BBC: “I think eventually when it can do what we do but better, that’ll be great thing for the human race - for informed decision-making, for informed voting, for informed everything.”
Urk, I wish. You'd have to feed it the most unbiased information possible, except that would probably determine it would be better for everyone if the human race went extinct or something.
Project Debater was not hooked up to the internet. Instead, it drew its information from a data bank of carefully curated sources chosen by IBM’s researchers.
As with the psychopathic Norman, data matters more than the algorithm. Though the mastery of language here is undeniably impressive. Not sure what that means for those who think language is key to human intelligence. Hugely interesting anyway...
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44531132
I've had serious arguments with my machines for decades.
ReplyDelete