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

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.