3 ms·

How can we rule out the possibility that Watson, Sophia etc are some WiFi operated, human controlled PR stunts? I'm not saying they are, but even when it did b

by borand 8y ago

How can we rule out the possibility that Watson, Sophia etc are some WiFi operated, human controlled PR stunts? I'm not saying they are, but even when it did beat Kasparov, where was the proof, code we can run ourselves and see, witnesses, just basic accountability stuff that we can make us safely believe that these are not staged? Does anyone know anything?

casper345 8y ago
Seeing this with the Google Assitance "scandel" of claims that alot of the demos didn't add up. How do we know this is really working. Most startup that say they are doing "ML/AI" tech are just exporting the data to factories of workers in developing countries to shift the data. Besides in research papers, I have yet to see these claims be palpable in reality.
- jvanderbot 8y ago
  > most Is this possible? If so, then call it Data Science or Push-button analysis.
- justwalt 8y ago
  > “scandel” Is this a reference that I’m not picking up on?
alexandercrohde 8y ago
Uh, what? Deep blue beating Kasparov obviously wasn't staged because there was no human strong enough to beat Kasparov at chess. The jeopardy thing wasn't staged (but also wasn't necessarily that impressive). To this day you can download a chess engine greater than the strongest human for free online (stockfish). This, however, is almost certainly a human-controlled PR-Stunt. Asking for evidence is fine, but let's not conflate this with something real like chess.
- borand 8y ago
  > This, however, is almost certainly a human-controlled PR-Stunt. Thank you. Unless they prove to us that it is not, it is. PS. Chess game could also be staged without having to find a better player. My other answer is above.
jakeinspace 8y ago
Well, as far as questioning deep blue: 1. There were only a handful of players around during those matches who could hold a candle to Kasparov. A team of the top GMs could maybe topple him, but that would require a significant conspiracy by individuals with no clear incentive to hype-up computer chess. 2) It wasn't long until you could run open source code on your home PC that could crush Kasparov. I suspect that much of the power of Watson comes from it's data sets and preprocessing, and that technically it wouldn't look nearly as impressive as Deep Mind's work. Open sourcing its core algorithms might not give any useful insights, especially if one lacks the data sets and a powerful enough custom-built machine.
- borand 8y ago
  I agree with you however, small set of training data could be made available with a downloadable Watson jr software so that you can see it playing chess against you, also proving somehow it's not just a clever algorithm and it's ML. I'm simplifying to make my point. I can't even assume we all agree winning against Kasparov is proof enough. Just for argument's sake, you can buy him out, convince him that this is an amazing PR for him as well - lose one game, be double famous for life, just as you can convince a boxer to lose a match. None of this tells me 100% that Watson is AI capable of winning a chess game in the 90s or hold an intellectual debate in 2018. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying burden of proof is bothering me. A good friend of mine who is a VP Cloud at IBM said when I asked last year "no one can explain Watson at ibm - it's a black box" I also wrote a few apps with tensorflow. Kasparov, winning Go game, playing fortnite, sure.What they are suggesting here and with Sophie, without proof of any kind, is beyond me.

by borand 8y ago

casper345 8y ago

Seeing this with the Google Assitance "scandel" of claims that alot of the demos didn't add up. How do we know this is really working. Most startup that say they are doing "ML/AI" tech are just exporting the data to factories of workers in developing countries to shift the data. Besides in research papers, I have yet to see these claims be palpable in reality.

jvanderbot 8y ago
> most Is this possible? If so, then call it Data Science or Push-button analysis.
justwalt 8y ago
> “scandel” Is this a reference that I’m not picking up on?

alexandercrohde 8y ago

Uh, what? Deep blue beating Kasparov obviously wasn't staged because there was no human strong enough to beat Kasparov at chess. The jeopardy thing wasn't staged (but also wasn't necessarily that impressive). To this day you can download a chess engine greater than the strongest human for free online (stockfish). This, however, is almost certainly a human-controlled PR-Stunt. Asking for evidence is fine, but let's not conflate this with something real like chess.

borand 8y ago
> This, however, is almost certainly a human-controlled PR-Stunt. Thank you. Unless they prove to us that it is not, it is. PS. Chess game could also be staged without having to find a better player. My other answer is above.

jakeinspace 8y ago

Well, as far as questioning deep blue: 1. There were only a handful of players around during those matches who could hold a candle to Kasparov. A team of the top GMs could maybe topple him, but that would require a significant conspiracy by individuals with no clear incentive to hype-up computer chess. 2) It wasn't long until you could run open source code on your home PC that could crush Kasparov. I suspect that much of the power of Watson comes from it's data sets and preprocessing, and that technically it wouldn't look nearly as impressive as Deep Mind's work. Open sourcing its core algorithms might not give any useful insights, especially if one lacks the data sets and a powerful enough custom-built machine.

borand 8y ago
I agree with you however, small set of training data could be made available with a downloadable Watson jr software so that you can see it playing chess against you, also proving somehow it's not just a clever algorithm and it's ML. I'm simplifying to make my point. I can't even assume we all agree winning against Kasparov is proof enough. Just for argument's sake, you can buy him out, convince him that this is an amazing PR for him as well - lose one game, be double famous for life, just as you can convince a boxer to lose a match. None of this tells me 100% that Watson is AI capable of winning a chess game in the 90s or hold an intellectual debate in 2018. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying burden of proof is bothering me. A good friend of mine who is a VP Cloud at IBM said when I asked last year "no one can explain Watson at ibm - it's a black box" I also wrote a few apps with tensorflow. Kasparov, winning Go game, playing fortnite, sure.What they are suggesting here and with Sophie, without proof of any kind, is beyond me.