Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Embodied language processing wikipedia , lookup
Technological singularity wikipedia , lookup
Machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Turing test wikipedia , lookup
Barbaric Machine Clan Gaiark wikipedia , lookup
Human-Computer Interaction Institute wikipedia , lookup
Intelligence explosion wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Existential risk from artificial general intelligence wikipedia , lookup
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601897/tougher-turing-test-exposes-chatbots-stupidity/ Tougher Turing Test Exposes Chatbots’ Stupidity We have a long way to go if we want virtual assistants to understand us. by Will Knight July 14, 2016 User: Siri, call me an ambulance. Siri: Okay, from now on I’ll call you “an ambulance.” Apple fixed this error shortly after its virtual assistant was first released in 2011. But a new contest shows that computers still lack the common sense required to avoid such embarrassing mix-ups. The results of the contest were presented at an academic conference in New York this week, and they provide some measure of how much work needs to be done to make computers truly intelligent. Illustration by Max Bode The Winograd Schema Challenge asks computers to make sense of sentences that are ambiguous but usually simple for humans to parse. Disambiguating Winograd Schema sentences requires some common-sense understanding. In the sentence “The city councilmen refused the demonstrators a permit because they feared violence,” it is logically unclear who the word “they” refers to, although humans understand because of the broader context. The programs entered into the challenge were a little better than random at choosing the correct meaning of sentences. The best two entrants were correct 48 percent of the time, compared to 45 percent if the answers are chosen at random. To be eligible to claim the grand prize of $25,000, entrants would need to achieve at least 90 percent accuracy. The joint best entries came from Quan Liu, a researcher at the University of Science and Technology of China, and Nicos Issak, a researcher from the Open University of Cypress. “It’s unsurprising that machines were barely better than chance,” says Gary Marcus, a research psychologist at New York University and an advisor to the contest. That’s because giving computers common-sense knowledge is notoriously difficult. Hand-coding knowledge is impossibly time-consuming, and it isn’t simple for computers to learn about the real world by performing statistical analysis of text. Most of the entrants in the Winograd Schema Challenge try to use some combination of hand-coded grammar understanding and a knowledge base of facts. Marcus, who is also the cofounder of a new AI startup, Geometric Intelligence, says it’s notable that Google and Facebook did not take part in the event, even though researchers at these companies have suggested they are making major progress in natural language understanding. “It could’ve been that those guys waltzed into this room and got a hundred percent and said ‘hah!’” he says. “But that would’ve astounded me.” The contest does not only serve as a measure of progress in AI. It also shows how hard it will be to build more intuitive and graceful chatbots, and to train computers to extract more information from written text. Researchers at Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft are turning their attention to language. They are using the latest machine learning techniques, especially “deep learning” neural networks, to develop smarter, more intuitive chatbots and personal assistants (see “Teaching Machines to Understand Us”). As a matter of fact, with chatbots and voice assistants becoming more common, and with dramatic progress in areas like image and speech recognition, you might think that machines were getting pretty good at understanding language. One of the two first-place entries did, in fact, use a cutting-edge machine learning approach. Liu’s group, which included researchers from York University in Toronto and the National Research Council of Canada, used deep learning to train a computer to recognize the relationship between different events, such as “playing basketball” and “winning” or “getting injured,” from thousands of texts. “I was delighted to see deep learning used,” says Leora Morgenstern, a senior scientist at Leidos Corporation, a technology consulting firm, and one of the organizers of the challenge. Liu’s team claims that after fixing a problem with the way its system parsed the contest’s questions, it is almost 60 percent accurate. Morgenstern cautions, however, that even if these claims were confirmed, the accuracy would still be far worse than a human's. Winograd Schema sentences were first highlighted as a way to gauge machine comprehension by Hector Levesque, an artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of Toronto. They are named after Terry Winograd, a pioneer in the field and a professor at Stanford University who built one of the first conversational computer programs. The challenge was proposed in 2014 as an improvement on the Turing Test. Alan Turing, a forefather of computing and artificial intelligence who in the 1950s pondered whether machines might one day think as humans do, suggested a simple way of testing a machine’s intelligence. His idea was for a machine to try to fool a person into thinking that he was conversing with a real person in a text conversation. The problem with the Turing Test is that it’s often easy for a program to fool a person using simple tricks and evasions. But a program cannot parse Winograd Schema or other ambiguous sentences without some form of general knowledge. … https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601901/darpa-hopes-automation-can-create-the-perfect-hacker/ DARPA Hopes Automation Can Create the Perfect Hacker Seven Pentagon supercomputers are getting ready to attack one another. by Tom Simonite July 13, 2016 Look out, human hackers. Pentagon research agency DARPA says people are too slow at finding and fixing security bugs and wants to see smart software take over the task. The agency released details today of a contest that will put that idea to the test at the annual DEF CON hacking conference in Las Vegas next month. Seven teams from academia and industry will pit high-powered computers provided by the agency against one another. Each team’s system must run a suite of software developed by DARPA for the event. Contestants win points by looking for and triggering bugs in software run by competitors while defending their own software. Mike Walker, the DARPA program manager leading the Cyber Grand Challenge project, claims the approach could make the world safer. “The comprehension and reaction to unknown flaws is entirely manual today,” he said in a briefing Wednesday. “We want to build autonomous systems that can arrive at their own insights about flaws [and] make their own decisions about when to release a patch.” When a malicious hacker finds a new flaw in a piece of commonly used software, they can typically exploit it for a year before it is fixed, Walker said. “We want to bring that response down to minutes or seconds. … http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/07/18/west-point-taps-artificial-intelligence-to-help-cadetsnegotiate.html West Point taps artificial intelligence to help cadets negotiate By Rob Verger Published July 18, 2016 FoxNews.com A lone West Point Cadet waves the American flag amid a sea of fellow Cadets as they watch Navy take a commanding lead in the first half of the Army-Navy game, December 6 1997 at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford. (Reuters) A company that sells software that analyzes the human voice and touts the virtues of empathy, rapport and emotional intelligence is joining forces with West Point United States Military Academy in an effort to help cadets become better negotiators. Cogito Corp. is a Boston-based company that makes software that can analyze a person’s voice in real-time. That information, the company says, can help customer service representatives show more empathy; the result is phone conversations that are more efficient and personalized, according to Cogito. Col. James Ness of West Point said that this kind of tech will help their students become better negotiators, a key skill for people in the military. “Cogito’s behavioral analytics technology will systematically analyze communication patterns within negotiating sessions and provide insight into the cadet’s psychological state,” Ness, who directs the engineering psychology program at West Point, said in a statement. “This technology will provide an unbiased assessment of how each cadet is being perceived by the other party. It will deliver insights into how they can modify their behavior to improve negotiation outcomes.” ** for training ** A company that makes software designed for people who work in call centers might seem like a strange fit for West Point, but Cogito has also partnered with the likes of the Defence Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA). The company has also worked with Massachusetts General Hospital on an appbased project tailored to analyze the moods of people with depression and bipolar disorder. …