In short: it processes auditory input to figure out the debate topic, parses articles and other written materials and strips information out that's relevant to the debate topic, and composes...
In short: it processes auditory input to figure out the debate topic, parses articles and other written materials and strips information out that's relevant to the debate topic, and composes sentences based on the contents of those articles.
The amount of progress made in those areas is certainly impressive, but it's still at the point of susceptibility to bad data. Feed it a bunch of pseudoscience and it'll likely give you pseudoscience as its arguments. The problem is that it's still the inherent limitations of a lack of actual decision-making abilities, and comprehension of the problems fed to it as well as their logical consistency. It's not really making anything, it's just highly advanced copy-pasting of existing recorded arguments without any actual understanding of the content beyond perhaps matching key words.
Again, still truly impressive advancements in the things that it does accomplish, it just feels like it's being presented as something it isn't in this article.
So you're saying it's the perfect student simulator?
It's not really making anything, it's just highly advanced copy-pasting of existing recorded arguments without any actual understanding of the content beyond perhaps matching key words.
So you're saying it's the perfect student simulator?
[https://youtu.be/AYI5LHnN9L0?t=3356](Baader meinhoff is strong with me today apparently..) I've not long watched this show. A goofy version of sherlock before sherlock became the goofy version of...
[https://youtu.be/AYI5LHnN9L0?t=3356](Baader meinhoff is strong with me today apparently..)
I've not long watched this show. A goofy version of sherlock before sherlock became the goofy version of sherlock, and this ep revolved somewhat around an AI that could reason. There was a "I want to invade X" thing up on the wall, and it'll come up with an irrefutably reasonable argument for it. And the timestamp is at the end when they lose the software just before they were gonna sell it and get rich.
I know the article isn't anything like that, but heck if that's not the first through that dove into my head.
In short: it processes auditory input to figure out the debate topic, parses articles and other written materials and strips information out that's relevant to the debate topic, and composes sentences based on the contents of those articles.
The amount of progress made in those areas is certainly impressive, but it's still at the point of susceptibility to bad data. Feed it a bunch of pseudoscience and it'll likely give you pseudoscience as its arguments. The problem is that it's still the inherent limitations of a lack of actual decision-making abilities, and comprehension of the problems fed to it as well as their logical consistency. It's not really making anything, it's just highly advanced copy-pasting of existing recorded arguments without any actual understanding of the content beyond perhaps matching key words.
Again, still truly impressive advancements in the things that it does accomplish, it just feels like it's being presented as something it isn't in this article.
So you're saying it's the perfect student simulator?
[https://youtu.be/AYI5LHnN9L0?t=3356](Baader meinhoff is strong with me today apparently..)
I've not long watched this show. A goofy version of sherlock before sherlock became the goofy version of sherlock, and this ep revolved somewhat around an AI that could reason. There was a "I want to invade X" thing up on the wall, and it'll come up with an irrefutably reasonable argument for it. And the timestamp is at the end when they lose the software just before they were gonna sell it and get rich.
I know the article isn't anything like that, but heck if that's not the first through that dove into my head.
If they came out with a consumer reports version of this, it would definitely save me some time.