SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
IBM showed off an AI system called Project Debater at an event in San Francisco:
In its first public demonstration held during an event at IBM's Watson West site in San Francisco, Project Debater was instructed to argue in favor of the proposition: "We should subsidize space exploration." According to a blog penned by IBM Research director Arvind Krishna, here is what happened:
"Project Debater made an opening argument that supported the statement with facts, including the points that space exploration benefits human kind because it can help advance scientific discoveries and it inspires young people to think beyond themselves. Noa Ovadia, the 2016 Israeli national debate champion, opposed the statement, arguing that there are better applications for government subsidies, including subsidies for scientific research here on Earth. After listening to Noa's argument, Project Debater delivered a rebuttal speech, countering with the view that potential technological and economic benefits from space exploration outweigh other government spending."
For an AI system, delivering an opening argument seems fairly straightforward, given that it's essentially a recitation of the most pertinent facts surrounding a topic. But the ability to provide a rebuttal against a skilled debater would seem to demand a good deal more sophistication. For starters, it requires the AI system to pick apart its counterpart's argument and respond to the issues he or she raised, and do so in a logical manner. That could only be done with a deep capability in natural language, plus the ability to understand high-level concepts in order to form relevant counter-arguments.
[...] The demonstration was followed by a second debate between the system and Dan Zafrir, another professional Israeli debater. In this case, they argued for and against the statement: "We should increase the use of telemedicine." No account was provided of how that debated proceeded.
Also at NPR.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday June 22 2018, @10:12AM
But can it pedantically pick apart an argument based on how they said it rather than what they said, and cleverly turn it inside out in a manor that is both insulting and totally misses the point? :P If not, then it would never survive on SoylentNews.
You know, the primary use for this sort of thing will be spamming forums. The first 10 automatic posts will look intelligent and get moderator approval, then bam wham, have some spam!.