Cnet reports: [edited]
IBM has created a system called Project Debater that competes in what the company calls computational argumentation – knowing a subject, presenting a position and defending it against opposition. At a press event, IBM pitted the system against two humans with a track record of winning debates.
In one debate, Noa Ovadia overall nudged two people among a few dozen in a human audience toward her perspective that governments shouldn't subsidise space exploration. But in the second, Project Debater soundly defeated Dan Zafrir, pulling nine audience members toward its stance that we should increase the use of telemedicine.
Project Debater was trained in advance on debating methods, but not the details of the debate itself, which it found out about only moments before the debate started. To formulate its argument, it had at its disposal a collection of 300 million news articles and scholarly papers, previously indexed for quick search results. But it had to find the information, package it persuasively, listen to its opponents' arguments and formulate a rebuttal.
Although IBM didn't try to pretend Debater is human, it speaks in a well-modulated female voice, and researchers call it "she." At the top of the pillar was a display showing its state of mind with curvaceous shapes in a soothing blue.
Debater showed a grasp of debating's nuts and bolts. It marshalled evidence, told you its stance, explained how its argument would proceed and made its case. It quoted authorities, like German ministers touting the economic benefits of space exploration or scientific studies showing better health outcomes for diabetes patients monitored from afar.
There were gaffes, like the moment Debater said subsidising space exploration "is more important than good roads, improved schools or better health care."
------------
No comments:
Post a Comment