قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / IBM's AI takes world-class debate in preschool arguments

IBM's AI takes world-class debate in preschool arguments



IBM's Project Debater, an AI system that can engage in human debate, was today with the 2016 World Debating Championships Grand Finalist and 2012 European Debate Champion Harish Natarajan. The debate was about preschool contributions, with Prosjekt Debater arguing for and Natarajan argued in the opposition.

More than 50 percent of the audience at the Yerba Buena Center for Art in San Francisco said in a poll taken after the debate that Debate enriched his knowledge of the subject, while about 20 percent said the same thing about Natarajan's argument.

The two seemed to fight for drawing when it came to changing their minds in the audience: After the debate, 17 per cent of the audience against the movement changed, and 1

7 per cent of the public in favor of pre-school contributions changed.

The competition took place before IBM Think, a conference held this week in San Francisco.

Natarajan and Debater were informed about the debate topic 15 minutes in advance. Participants were given a total of 8 minutes each to share an opening argument, a recall and a two-minute termination argument.

Debate argued in favor of kindergarten because it can, among other things, benefit the poor, for better students, and can reduce crime along the way, referring to a wide range of sources, including the National Institute for Early Education and the Centers for Disease Confirmation and prevention.

Doing what is considered moral right from human beings was central to the debater's opening argument

"Giving opportunities to the less fortunate is a moral obligation for every human being," the debate said, after asking her (debates is a woman, its creators said, the opponent would rather the poor on his doorstep. 19659002] "It is basic human decency," said the debater with regard to welfare, who called it the same as extending a helping hand to someone who fell.

For its part, Natarajan claimed that pr eschool subsidies can be used better elsewhere to help the most disadvantaged, and such grants are mainly aimed at a political distribution for the middle class.

Debate and Natarajan had never spoken before the debate. By comparison, when Project Debater published its debut in a series of arguments last summer, Natarajan had no previous experience in interaction with the AI ​​system.

Debate is trained with billions of newspaper articles, Wikipedia topic pages, and other sources of knowledge. Watson conversational AI was used to convert speech-to-text as part of the process.

Project Debater is today the latest man against machine competition driven by artificial intelligence.

After the creation of AlphaGo and the defeat of Go Master Lee Sadol, DeepMind continues to create systems that beat human professionals into games such as Starcraft II.

Last week, Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence broke out AllenAI, a system designed to work with a human in a game like Pictionary. The purpose of this system is to learn to work with a human being, but future efficacy tests will be the Turing test to see if people can stand out if they are playing with a human or a machine.

Autumn drone systems joined the Drone Racing League, and AWS introduced an autonomous competition for its DeepRacer car last fall.

The debate was moderated by John Donovan, host of the Intelligence Squared.

Intelligence Squared has received updates on Project Debater For many years, IBM Research Director Dario Gil has told VentureBeat in a telephone interview.

Like the show, audience members were asked to vote on who won the debate and which side answered your opinion.

Intelligence Squared has played a role in Project Debates because victory or loss is not the central point as much as helping people with valuable dialogue help you develop the way you think.

"It's not like" Oh now Project The bater is the only way to discuss. "It has its pluses and minuses, the machines that debate, people do it too, but the question is because they argue differently, they use facts differently, the resulting experience is, enriching for us? Does it add anything to the conversation?"


Source link