Supercomputer blundered

“The IBM Watson supercomputer can now participate in the debate, IBM has created artificial intelligence,” read all the technological news feeds . They refer to the results of the Milken Institute Global Conference at which IBM introduced the new debater function of its supercomputer, five minutes to artificial intelligence, Watson, which is that the computer supposedly can freely and convincingly debate on any given topic like an ordinary person.
The news was received with a bang - long ago we have not heard about the progress in the development of artificial intelligence.
Unfortunately, on the wave of joy, few people bothered to check whether Watson really possesses analytical skills or whether its creators decided to deceive the audience and imitate the activity.
I analyzed Watson’s judgments in detail and came to very disappointing conclusions - the debates failed.

Let's find out together what is wrong with the smartest computer of the decade.
The task was set as follows: speak out for and against the restriction of access to violent computer games for children ( 45th minute video )

It was assumed that Watson, after analyzing the entire Wikipedia, will make its “opinion” based on it.
The first argument, the computer quoted the Wikipedia archive:

The impact of violent video games leads to an increase in physiological arousal, aggressive thoughts and feelings, and also worsens social behavior.
(Exposure to violent physiological arousal, aggression-related thoughts and feelings, as well as decreased pro-social behavior.)

The spoken phrase is completely copied from the Wikipedia article The debate on video games (Video game controversies) , that's just bad luck - in early March, this phrase was edited, it is no longer in Wikipedia.
It turns out that Watson takes information not directly from the Internet, from current sources, but from a copy of Wikipedia, which was downloaded to it at least two months ago - this is a huge period for a computer that claims to be omniscient. Or developers deliberately inhibit the development of artificial intelligence?

Next phrase

In addition, these violent games or lyrics are the cause of aggression in adolescents in real life.
(In addition, these violent games or lyrics actually cause aggression.)

out of context. Why did IBM talk about the lyrics? He was not asked about it. The computer simply found a phrase with similar words and pronounced it, so I just did not realize that the speech in the primary source article was about cruel songs.
')

Finally, violent video games can increase children's aggression.
(Finally, violent videogames can increase children's aggression.)

I finished the computer with my arguments “for” another copying of similar words from Wikipedia . Moreover, this “argument” repeats the two previous ones.

Go to the arguments against. Watson started with a mere assertion, which can hardly be called an argument, and, of course, copied from Wikipedia :

On the other hand, violence in video games is not related to aggression
(Violence in videogames is not causally linked with aggressive tendencies)

Most children who play violent video games have no problems.
(Most children who play violent games.)

This ( copied ) phrase is a classic argument in sophistry - any opponent will immediately notice that it’s not the fact that most of the players are not aggressive, but the fact that there are more aggressive among gamers than among ordinary people is important.

The last argument against is not logical either:

Video games are part of the teenager’s normal social environment.
(Video game play is part of an adolescent boy's normal social setting)

If something is normal in one environment, it does not at all mean that it will be normal in society as a whole. So, society will only lose by the fact that all adolescents will be cruel and aggressive and will consider it normal.

So let's summarize:
Watson has access only to its internal legacy databases.
Watson simply copies parts of sentences similar in composition to Wikipedia.
Watson pulls phrases out of context, as long as there are keywords
Watson does not think at all about the logic and quality of argument
Watson makes relatively well-related sentences.
Watson makes almost pure sentences

Thus, Watson and the entire IBM Research team failed miserably in their first public debate.

To some extent, this is not surprising - let's try to find some information on the IBM website . Oh, what is it? Poor search results? Could even search from Google to deliver, or from Mail.ru at least.


Unfortunately, in order to claim the title of Artificial Intelligence in the 21st century, it is not enough to have a semantic search and a base of linking words, you really need to reason, think, at least. So far IBM has failed to realize this, although they have tried very hard to make a sensation - otherwise, why demonstrate publicly poorly working technology?
Yes, the supercomputer can quickly find the answer to the quiz question on Wikipedia, yes, it can calculate all the options for moves in a chess game - these are all the tasks of a dull machine. But to argue on his own, to create at least to some extent as a person, he still has not learned.
We do not need false sensations.
Maybe another time, IBM.