Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Friday June 22 2018, @07:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-disagree dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 22 2018, @02:20PM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 22 2018, @02:20PM (#696748) Journal

    So the damned AI beat a couple humans. Are they ready to try it on someone more challenging than Nancy Pelosi, or George Bush? Turn it loose on our Michael David Crawford and see how it fares.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 22 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 22 2018, @03:05PM (#696773) Journal

    I would like to see how well it performs debating with Anonymous Coward.

    --
    The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 22 2018, @03:17PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 22 2018, @03:17PM (#696781) Journal

      I suspect that it would be schizoid in short order. The apparent same person changing his stance repeatedly, sometimes in mid-sentence, would surely have some effect. At least with MDC, the AI could keep up with any apparent pivots, flipflops, and whatever else.