3 ms·

Call me a cynic, but I don't trust anything IBM puts out on AI. There have been so many bullshit PR articles, with lots of nice working packaging bullshit. This

Call me a cynic, but I don't trust anything IBM puts out on AI. There have been so many bullshit PR articles, with lots of nice working packaging bullshit. This one feels the same. It's so discouraging hearing all about Watson and health for past X years and then reading AI insider articles refuting the work as total bullshit and a PR job to keep IBM relevant today. Don't know why this would be any different.

thanatropism 8y ago
Don't forget Deep Blue. I know strong/superhuman computer chess is a thing now, but what of that came out of Deep Blue?
Eridrus 8y ago
I think you made the same.mistake as the media - thinking that today's AI systems are more general than they truly are. IBM did build a computer that could play jeapordy. But being able to play jeapordy doesn't tell us how good any of the subcomponents are at, e.g. understanding doctors notes/journal articles. The same thing goes here, they built a system that can debate with some ability. Can it be used to spot fake news as a researcher says? Maybe some subcomponents could be reused for that, but there's no guarantee that they will be good enough for that task either. You really have to take modern AI at face value and not extrapolate from what it actually does to anything else, otherwise you will whipsaw between optimism and cynicism.
- randcraw 8y ago
  Actually, real debate is about responding to the other debaters arguments and countering them. Thus this IBM marketing show was not really a debate. This was a demo that IBM could synthesize a plausible argument that supports or refutes a given assertion. That's interesting and a bit impressive (presuming its argument isn't simply a regurgitation of some position paper it found online). But without understanding cause and effect, its arguments will remain very superficial, probably driven by a small catalog of argument 'frames' (templates) that adaptively fill a handful of slots like [needs] [means] [goal] [conflicts] and [emotional hooks]. Using such simple recipes it can produce verbiage that plausibly sounds humanlike, but isn't actually reasoning. It's likely that the system couldn't even diagnose help desk problems using basic logic, e.g. backtracking to thise dependencies that might have caused the given outcome, thereby identifying only the possible and plausible causes.
- jlavine 8y ago
  What you write is true, but this mistake was deliberately spread through IBM's hype, such as seemingly empty promises to apply Watson to all sorts of business, medical, and political problems. This hype is the reason these demonstrations get as much attention as they do. This hype, which IBM uses to sell unrelated services, also seems to be the only thing IBM actually gets out of funding all of its AI development.
- luka-birsa 8y ago
  There was no accidental mistake by the media. It was a PR spin by IBM, hyping up the tech to sell the IBM brand.
maxxxxx 8y ago
I worked at IBM research for a year and I got the impression that they have quite a few people who do absolutely top-notch work. As soon as it's time to commercialize the management machine kicks in and pretty much kills any kind of innovation though. So I believe they have the tech at a research/prototype level but have no ability to bring it to market.

thanatropism 8y ago

Don't forget Deep Blue. I know strong/superhuman computer chess is a thing now, but what of that came out of Deep Blue?

Eridrus 8y ago

I think you made the same.mistake as the media - thinking that today's AI systems are more general than they truly are. IBM did build a computer that could play jeapordy. But being able to play jeapordy doesn't tell us how good any of the subcomponents are at, e.g. understanding doctors notes/journal articles. The same thing goes here, they built a system that can debate with some ability. Can it be used to spot fake news as a researcher says? Maybe some subcomponents could be reused for that, but there's no guarantee that they will be good enough for that task either. You really have to take modern AI at face value and not extrapolate from what it actually does to anything else, otherwise you will whipsaw between optimism and cynicism.

randcraw 8y ago
Actually, real debate is about responding to the other debaters arguments and countering them. Thus this IBM marketing show was not really a debate. This was a demo that IBM could synthesize a plausible argument that supports or refutes a given assertion. That's interesting and a bit impressive (presuming its argument isn't simply a regurgitation of some position paper it found online). But without understanding cause and effect, its arguments will remain very superficial, probably driven by a small catalog of argument 'frames' (templates) that adaptively fill a handful of slots like [needs] [means] [goal] [conflicts] and [emotional hooks]. Using such simple recipes it can produce verbiage that plausibly sounds humanlike, but isn't actually reasoning. It's likely that the system couldn't even diagnose help desk problems using basic logic, e.g. backtracking to thise dependencies that might have caused the given outcome, thereby identifying only the possible and plausible causes.
jlavine 8y ago
What you write is true, but this mistake was deliberately spread through IBM's hype, such as seemingly empty promises to apply Watson to all sorts of business, medical, and political problems. This hype is the reason these demonstrations get as much attention as they do. This hype, which IBM uses to sell unrelated services, also seems to be the only thing IBM actually gets out of funding all of its AI development.
luka-birsa 8y ago
There was no accidental mistake by the media. It was a PR spin by IBM, hyping up the tech to sell the IBM brand.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I worked at IBM research for a year and I got the impression that they have quite a few people who do absolutely top-notch work. As soon as it's time to commercialize the management machine kicks in and pretty much kills any kind of innovation though. So I believe they have the tech at a research/prototype level but have no ability to bring it to market.