In 2019, globally recognized debate champion Harish Natarajan took part in a live debate with a five-and-a-half-foot-tall rectangular computer screen, in front of around 800 people. The topic of discussion? Whether or not nursery school should be subsidized. However, the topic is not really the topic here, but the fact that Natarajan had a heated discussion with a computer system is. This particular algorithm has evolved quite rapidly since then as well, and it increasingly approaches the kind of complex human interaction represented by formal argumentation.
For a bit of hindsight: IBM’s deep blue was the first computer to defeat reigning chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, then fourteen years later IBM Watson defeated the All-Star Danger! players Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings. By this point, smart computers were solidified, but many tests to come to this clarification were based on clearly winning or losing results. In other words, the coding behind such technological brains has led to a binary algorithmic path to victory, by presenting that in fact a system that could interact with the nuance that allows complex conversation with human beings was still not possible. That’s until (potentially) now.
A study published by Nature shows surprising progress within the Artificial intelligence (IA), and more particularly with the new creation of IMB “Project debater”, which is the algorithm that increases the likelihood that a computer will soon be able to understand and interact with what might be described as a ‘gray area’, regarding the differentiation between humans and technology .
The study consists of IBM researchers from around the world reporting on the progress of the AI ââsystem. Following on from the 2019 debate with Natarajan, a series of similar tests were recorded, and assessed on nearly 80 different subjects by 15 members of a virtual audience, between Project Debater and three other expert human debaters.
As reported by American scientist âIn these man-machine competitions, neither party is allowed to access the Internet. Instead, everyone has 15 minutes to âcollect their ideas,â as Christopher P. Sciacca, communications manager for IBM Research’s global labs, puts it. This means that the human debater may take a moment to jot down ideas on a topic at hand, such as subsidized preschool, while Project Debater combs through millions of journal articles and Wikipedia entries previously. stored, analyzing specific sentences and commonalities and disagreements on particular topics. After the preparation time, the two parties alternately give four-minute speeches, and then each make a two-minute closing statement.
While Project Debater has come a long way, it still hasn’t managed to argue in front of human debaters, but to be fair, neither have most other humans. What’s the real point of having an AI system that has the ability to argue anyway? Well, humans live online and bots are frequently chatting with us without us possibly being able to decipher whether it is one or not. One of the goals is to make this precise process even more difficult for us to tell the difference.
Searcher Chris Roseau of University of Dundee, who is not on the Project Debater team, but wrote in a comment also posted in Nature saying that âMore than 50 labs around the world are working on the problem, including teams from all the major software companies. Which leads us to realize that these systems are not going anywhere in the future. As Futurism wrote on the subject, to prepare for what is to come “maybe we should all start thinking about how to choose our battles. Before you get drawn into another online argument, keep in mind that it could be a bot on the other end that will engage in the fight over and over again until you get over it. go or waste hours screaming in the digital void.
Models of what constitutes a “good argument” are diverse, and on the other hand, a good debate can be summed up, as Reed puts it, “to little more than formalized hunches.” The paper continues to pose that the challenge facing argumentation and technology systems will be essentially whether to treat arguments as fragments of local discourse influenced by an isolated set of considerations, or to ‘weave them into the larger tapestry of societal debates â. Reed writes that “it’s about designing the problem to be solved, rather than designing the solution.”
In the real and human world, there are no clear boundaries to determine an argument; the solutions are most often subjective to a range of contextual ideas. However, if Project Debater is more suited and successful in turn, Reed comments that “given the forest fires in fake news, the polarization of public opinion and the ubiquity of lazy reasoning, this ease belies an urgent need for humans to be supported in creating, processing, navigating, and sharing complex arguments – a support that l ‘AI might be able to provide. So while Project Debater tackles a big challenge that primarily acts as a rallying cry for research, it also represents a step towards AI that can contribute to human reasoning.
In their essence, AI systems are defined by the ability of a machine to perform a task that is typically associated with intelligent humans: argumentation and debate are fundamental to how humans interact and respond to things. world around them, and therefore, within our human world. which has become increasingly parallel in importance to another – the Internet world – having an intelligent system of interactions and reactions will simply be solidify parallel. Whether this is in fact a good thing or a bad thing is still open to human debate.