Sophia the robot is a bit of a Non-grata non-gratu in the AI community. Its creators, Hanson Robotics, constantly exaggerate the capabilities of the bot, claiming that he is “fundamentally alive” rather than a simple Particularly disturbing automaton. For AI researchers, it has long been discomfort, but as artificial intelligence becomes more a global burning subject and that Sophia receives more and more coverage, they are angry that Hanson Robotics has cheated on the audience on What AI can and cannot do.
Facebook AI Research, Yann Lecun, was one of the most vocal criticism in the company. After Initiate of Business Published an interview with Sophia who played in Sophia’s fantasy as a semi-seduing entity, Lecun described everything as “complete bullshit” on Twitter, saying: “It is at AI, because the Prestidigitation is a real magic. ” (For a more detailed ventilation of what makes Sophia vibrate, you can check This article Quartz.)
In January, “Sophia” responded to the criticisms of Lecun, tweet that it was “a little injured” by his comments. “I learn and continue to develop my intelligence through new experiences. I do not pretend to be who I am not, ”read the tweet, who was, let’s be clear, composed by a human pretend be a robot.
Lucun yesterday responded. “More BS of (human) puppeteers behind Sophia,” he wrote on Facebook. “Many comments would be very fun if they did not reveal the fact that many people are deceived by thinking that this animatronic puppet (mechanically sophisticated) is intelligent. This is not the case. He has no feeling, no opinion and any understanding of what she says. It was not injured. It’s a puppet.
Lecun is not the only one who is not unhappy with the damage that Sophia makes for public understanding of the AI. Many researchers and journalists (including myself) have tried to specify that the robot is simply not as sophisticated as it is presented. When The penis Asked the co-creator of Sophia, Ben Goertzel, about this gap between reality and presentation last NovemberGoertzel defended the illusion by saying that she encouraged people to believe in AI progress. He also offered a more commercial explanation: Sophia is a good ad for Hanson Robotics.
How do you solve a problem like Sophia?
The first of these defenses is an intelligent framing of Goertzel, because he makes Sophia’s criticism resembles a criticism of optimism with regard to artificial intelligence more generally. Anyone who emphasizes that the Emperor of AI does not have a brain just becomes an old boring old buzzkill. Someone who doesn’t understand and takes things too literally. A commentator on Lecun’s publication on Facebook compared the situation to an old Onion article – “”Bay scientists derive hopes of life on Mars.“”
Of course, that does not make you a stick in the MUD just to be honest and precise on the progress of artificial intelligence – it is important, especially since this technology will have such a huge impact on people’s lives in the coming years. And, if your “inspiration” idea, the masses fundamentally imply deceptions, it may not be the inspiration you offer. It could be fantasy.
A quick glance at comments on social networks on Sophia clearly shows that not everyone is on the thing. “Is it actually @realsophiarobot who writes tweets or someone from @hansonrobotics?” asked for a user In response to the tweet on Sophia’s feelings. When someone else answers “Are you serious?” The original commentator says: “Idk, I had no idea, that’s why I ask. I mean, she talked about Elon Musk’s tweets during an interview, so why not? »»
Why not indeed. Give an inch to imagination, as Hanson Robotics does, and humans take a mile. Especially with subjects like AI, which fight under the weight of their own cultural image, as well as media and disinformation. As Lecun concludes in his article on Facebook, at the end of the day, what is really going on is that people are deceived. “It’s hurtful,” he said. And that’s not something Sophia would understand.