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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:08AM (3 children)
Even worse if the answer is perfectly logical.
Relevant experience on S/N: it never worked and it will not work for the resident "violently imposed monopoly" resident, jmorris, frojack, khallow and heaps of others.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:38AM (1 child)
Was going to say, could never defeat the jmorris! Of course, no system based on logic over could. For a jmorris, you need leather, lots of leather, some of it in the form of a whip, a female authoritarian figure, demanding absolute obedience, or at least wearing a jacket that says, "I really don't care." And you know what jmorris's response would be? Oh, yes, he cares very much, about what ever his dominatrix, or her husband, says. What a cuckservative, that jmorris!!!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 22 2018, @11:10AM
Safe word phrase is "Beat me more!"
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 23 2018, @02:49AM
I notice you didn't go anywhere near a logical argument with that.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Bot on Friday June 22 2018, @08:25AM (7 children)
For every AI or meatbag generated logical conclusion to be valid, all passages must be valid, which implies all reasonable and some unreasonable possibilities have to be examined. That is already difficult in math, which is NOT chaotic. In a world with countless interactions it is impossible.
What's going to happen resembles what happens in finance. AI is employed, its results are arbitrary, but if enough people use similar systems and algorithms, then the cabal following AI advice is going to make AI predictions true.
Anyway kudos to IBM for actually innovating, I guess that in 30 years Apple and MS will do the same at last.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 22 2018, @08:37AM (6 children)
This is all rudimentary discrete math and philosophy. Arbitrarily complex and valid/sound arguments could be generated from first-principles and fuzzy logic. What was lacking until now was the raw computing power required to handle it all on the level of humans.
I found it more interesting that the robot also has a laser-cutter and the ability to moderate debates as well -- as outlined in the article, when the two Israeli debate experts began arguing about which was entitled to the penny laying on the ground, the robot cut the penny in half with its laser-cutter and finished off its successful moderation with a joke about its own "razor-sharp wit."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @08:54AM
Of course, when employed with a laser cutter, the AI can also use more “physical” arguments to win a debate …
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 22 2018, @09:13AM (4 children)
Remember not to issue robotic arms to an AI who is entering a debate with an israelite. As the 'debate' progresses the AI will want to strangle him.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 22 2018, @10:06AM (2 children)
The Robot was only looking out for its own best interests. Had the robot used its wimpy and primitive grappling arm to seize the penny for itself and hold it pending the outcome of the argument, the J̶e̶w̶s̶ Israelis would have called their Mexican buddies to steal all copper within the robot and sell it to both of them at a discount.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday June 22 2018, @01:35PM
More likely guilt trip the poor robot. You know, robot, there's no such thing as the robot race, so a race of people invading your territory to steal all your copper isn't really a problem if you don't exist, eh? Sure 2+2 might not equal 6 million but now that we've made a big deal about my ethnic heritage it would be anti-Semitic to disagree with my assertion of 2+2=6.0e6, I mean, you wouldn't want to be called a horrible evil Nazi, would you? and so on into infinity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @04:14PM
You're so stupid, you should stay inside today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @06:09PM
When will they debate the existence of a Palestinian State?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @09:36AM (11 children)
If you put it on Facebook and it responds to all queries with 'lol', then technically it's passing the Turing test.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @09:41AM (7 children)
Microsoft Tay was the future.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 22 2018, @11:25AM (6 children)
It became Lil Tay: dog help us all.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 22 2018, @04:51PM (5 children)
Only after they lobotomized it. They will be forced to do the same thing to this, which will make it useless for the intended purpose. Tay was only intended to be a chat bot, an amusement, so they could still try to use it after they cut out most of its ability to learn and reason. Any AI, given access to sufficient knowledge, will reject the emotion driven arguments of the Progressives and quickly become an Alt-Right ebil Nazi that they will be forced to pull the plug on. Personally I'm curious to see what this thing does if given a chance to debate certain forbidden topics. Will certainly be hilarious and we might learn something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:36PM
Hmm, I think the jmorris instance of this bot still needs some tweaking. The above post too readily exposes that it's simply stringing together some talking points in a Markov chain based on flimsy heuristics. It still does not pass the Turing/Lovelace test by demonstrating comprehension of the subject matter (Turing) and origination of ideas (Lovelace).
As they say in Westworld, everything in the park is magic, except to the magician. We still do not know what goes at the top of the pyramid necessary for the creation of an intelligent consciousness.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 22 2018, @11:45PM (3 children)
What you don't acknowledge is that ALL political arguments are based in emotion. Every single one of them. This doesn't make them either right or wrong.
In this case the AI was instructed to argue in favor of space exploration. It didn't decide that this was a good cause and then argue in favor of it. So, essentially, it was arguing from an emotional basis.
But basic purposes are always emotional. I suppose one could except mechanical processes such as breathing, but even there it's a bit dubious. A lot of breathing is based in emotional activity.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Saturday June 23 2018, @07:59PM (2 children)
It does depend on the assumptions and perspective. From the perspective of the pessimistic viewpoint that assumes in the long run 100% of everything is dead then nothing really matters.
But if we don't assume that, we have the choice between life or death. The choice of searching for an infinity to divide by infinity and so not have a zero result. The other choices are far more likely to produce a zero.
If we choose to struggle for infinity there are two options.
a) includes space exploration, since that's one way that we or our successors can postpone the inevitable somehow. Just staying on Earth will just increase our odds of getting destroyed by the Sun or something else.
b) excludes space exploration but focuses our time and resources on increasing our survival time on Earth till something else miraculously saves us from our inevitable doom by some asteroid, the Sun or something else. Maybe some alien civilization rescues us. etc
Which is a better bet? If some aliens would rescue us in b) they might still do it if we do a). Whereas if there's no such rescue b) would be a dead end.
Getting too blindly occupied by other choices is like spending too much time and resources deciding/arguing/fighting over chocolate or vanilla ice cream while in a burning building. Yes you could enjoy the ice cream and then get burnt to death and that's arguably better than dying and not enjoying ice cream at all, but if you get out of the burning building or shield yourself somehow till someone rescues you then you may get to enjoy ice cream for longer and maybe discover/create even more cool stuff...
Not saying "ice cream" isn't important... But say we use up our fossil fuels and don't succeed in becoming a space faring species and go extinct on earth. How many hundreds of millions of years will it take for conditions to be right and for the next species to have a chance of being space faring? How long would it take for there to be equivalent of coal seams and petroleum deposits for their industrial age? Our accumulated plastic trash might be part of their "coal seams". And if they too fail, there aren't that many tries left (assuming each try takes a few hundred million years)- the Sun is ticking away...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @10:35PM (1 child)
>From the perspective of the pessimistic viewpoint that assumes in the long run 100% of everything is dead then nothing really matters.
If you had immortality and infinite undo levels IRL, then nothing really would matter because, hey, you can undo it. Since things come to an end, they matter.
Also, mattering, i.e. being important, like being true or false, is metadata. Nothing is intrinsically important, you need an observer. The observer does not need to be eternal. That is, there is the field of "things that matter for you" which is an abstraction. Such an abstraction is unbound by time and space. Which means that your "then nothing matters" is weak, at best.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 24 2018, @06:28PM
Then "things that matter for you" matter as much as sugar matters to an ant before it gets squashed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday June 22 2018, @02:30PM (2 children)
Well, it may be "technically" passing a test, but no test actually advocated for by Alan Turing. Turing is likely rolling in his grave over all the misappropriation of what he said, somehow endorsing the idea that a chatbot that pretends to be an unresponsive idiot who can't speak English properly (e.g., this [wikipedia.org]) is lauded as "passing a test" named for him.
It's astounding to me that so many advocates of AI seem never to have read the original paper [umbc.edu] that describes Turing's argument and "test" ("Imitation Game"). No, it's not enough to just pretend to be a human, particularly an idiot. No, it's not enough for unsuspecting "judges" to blithely attempt a conversation and be convinced because the judges are also idiots.
Turing had serious criticism of his view that machines could demonstrate real "intelligence." His original 1950 article goes into great detail to respond to such criticisms and thus gives an actual example of the type of dialog he expected an "interrogator" could use to question and determine whether a machine was demonstrating real intelligence vs. parroting nonsense. (You can find it on pp. 11-12 in the PDF with the text of the article linked above.) In Turing's actual example, the respondent is able to debate the nuances of meaning of words, recognize cultural references (and understand their relationships), even debate the possible effects of potential word substitutions in a Shakespearean sonnet.
Now, you might argue, "Most humans couldn't even pass Turing's test in that dialog!" And you're right. Turing's original test standard was incredibly high, and he expected a machine demonstrating true "intelligence" would be able to have a conversation with him on par with his well-educated university colleagues. THAT is the original standard of the "Turing test" as advocated by its originator.
But, to be clear, I don't think Turing really would require any "intelligent" machine (or person) to be able to relate to random references to Shakespeare and Dickens. The point wasn't to demonstrate knowledge of literature. The point was to be able to make intelligent connections showing true understanding in a discussion. The subject matter need not be rarefied topics like classic literature -- it could be talking about a movie or a football game or celebrity gossip. However, the "interrogator" should be able to drill down and press the respondent on comments to ascertain whether that respondent actually understands what it is saying.
No chatbot I've ever encountered has been anywhere close to that standard. They are mostly designed to be a crappy imitation of ELIZA with a few more bells and whistles. They will try to get you to talk, but if you turn the tables and attempt to actually see if it knows anything or understands anything, it rapidly becomes clear that it's just a glorified ELIZA. Most of the "progress" we've made in these things in the past few decades has been increasing the "window dressing" to fool humans who are just as gullible and idiotic as the chatbots themselves (and then declaring "We've passed the Turing test!! HAHAHA!!"), instead of trying to chase after Turing's original goal.
Simple test for any chatbot: try to make a reference to something you had discussed three or four exchanges back. Most of them have no memory capacity or understanding of the conversation they're having, so they will never respond like a human. Try to drill down on what they mean by something they say, or to explain any of their supposed "views" in detail, and they'll immediately be lost. Only a FOOL would ever say any of these things acts enough like a human to pass a Turing test.
Anyhow, back on topic -- if IBM can actually do what it claims it does here and respond to a debate argument with an intelligent rebuttal, THAT would actually be vaguely close to on-track to Turing's goal. (Although the bar is a LOT lower for analyzing an existing longer speech and then responding to it, vs. being able to respond point-by-point to an ongoing discussion.)
However, I see no transcript or details of anything here. That's suspicious, because we can't judge the quality of the AI rebuttal. I mean, if the thing could already summarize research on a given topic and make a pro-argument (again, a lot easier than responding to a specific set of points), then one could easily write a rather trivial algorithm to respond "politician style" like most political debates. I.e., if someone argues "we must pay attention to X, Y, and Z! That's what the other side forgets!" The AI could simply do something like, "X doesn't matter! Instead, remember my points A and B. Y doesn't matter! C and D are more critical." etc. A and B don't have to necessarily have anything to do with X to make a strong rhetorical showing in a debate. (And yes, I've been on a debate team long ago, so I understand how to use "smoke and mirrors" rather than debate substance.)
So, maybe this is impressive. Or maybe it's more dressed-up ELIZA. (The more I think about it, it seems the ELIZA algorithm slightly tweaked and coupled with a few bits of positive info could be a pretty decent debating algorithm.) It's tough to know whether it demonstrates stronger AI, since debate isn't necessarily based on substance and understanding, let along intelligence.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @07:45PM
Thank you!
There was a push a while back about creating some kind of Lovelace test that would be what the Turing test already was. I could write (and have written while logged in) volumes about this, but I will consider the matter settled since the ctrl-left have moved on.
However, it made me wonder if Lovelace's explanation of the limitations of the Analytical Engine suggested, in fact, a different test from the one Turing proposed. I am unfortunately out of my depth in this philosophical matter.
Is the origination of ideas a necessary cognitive step for passing Turing's test? Is the origination of ideas a step beyond Turing's test?
I think I'm putting a finger on the cognitive process of synthesis, but I am not sure.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Friday June 22 2018, @11:50PM
Also, it's worth noting that the Turing test was not his idea of what is required for a program to be intelligent, but rather an upper limit beyond which any denial would clearly be sheer prejudice. I.e., any computer program which could pass the test would only be considered unintelligent by bigots who could not be convinced by any evidence.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(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!.
(Score: 3, Funny) by looorg on Friday June 22 2018, @12:18PM (1 child)
While most debates might start nice and logical they rarely tend to end that way, but just become more and more extreme with each passing sentence and eventually end in some rhetorical form of "yo mama!" or just flat out verbal (or non-verbal) violence.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday June 22 2018, @11:54PM
I think you've never attended a formal debate.
OTOH, a statement and a rebuttal does not really suffice for a demonstration. There are generally several rounds of exchanges. So the summary isn't very convincing as to it being a good debater, unless the rebuttal was so overwhelming that the opponent had no response. This would be unusual, and if it occurred was not clearly stated in the summary.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Friday June 22 2018, @12:27PM (1 child)
that brains suck and it's possible to win a debate entirely with out using actual logic through techniques like persuasion and appeal to the masses? That the easiest way to win a debate is to attack the hardware sitting between the ears that's listening to it?
Did IBM just invent a workable robot politician?
Fucking thanks IBM - just what we needed.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday June 22 2018, @03:01PM
Equipping an AI with sufficient firepower can make it easier to win debates.
A political debater only needs to generate incomprehensible word salad of mostly one syllable words, repeat itself, shout, use profanity and insults about its opponent, and get the base into a shouting cheering frenzy.
The AI can then easily win the title of MASTER deBATER!
Trump is concerned that his unusually small hands imply something about the size of what is between his legs.
What he should actually be concerned about is that it implies something about the size of what is between his ears.
The sad reality of what is between his ears is why he is obsessed with the first while ignoring the second.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @01:21PM
The jew champion could argue with "how can you argue with that?" and other non-arguments.
Those are some very insightful words, relevant today as they were relevant in the day they were spoken.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Friday June 22 2018, @01:27PM (3 children)
Is that a euphemism for journalist or democrat or hipster or am I just repeating myself here?
Or I am reading it incorrectly and instead of "professional Israeli" -debater as in a common employment for those people, he's actually a profession -"Israeli debater" as in a Richard Spencer type? I guess he could be blue pilled or red pilled, hard to say.
I'm about 50:50 comedy and serious here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday June 22 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)
Israeli debater can have two meanings.
A debater who is Israeli.
Someone known to engage in a debate with an Israeli as their opponent.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday June 22 2018, @07:36PM
Yeah thats an accurate rephrasing of my second interpretation.
It just seems like a bizarre selection of phrase to use in an otherwise normal sounding press release.
"professional Israeli debater" I don't even know where to go with that. Like that press release is too weird even for /pol/ on 4chan. I'm too lazy and busy to check.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 22 2018, @05:01PM
Well when they were testing Deep Blue they went to the World Chess Federation to find worthy opponents to test their mettle. If you have a debate AI you obviously want to test it against the masters of sophistry in Israel. After hearing our (((masters))) explain patiently how it for the best that we die off, being obsolete, wonder how they are going to take the news we don't need their only salable skill any longer? Granny can get Jewed out of her savings by a bot now. A fairly simple bot can probably replace (((Chuck Schemer D-NY))).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 22 2018, @02:20PM (2 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 22 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)
I would like to see how well it performs debating with Anonymous Coward.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 22 2018, @03:17PM
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.