What IBM's Project Debater could do for fake news

by Peter Griffin / 07 March, 2019
Harish Natarajan with IBM’s Project Debater. Photo/Supplied

Harish Natarajan with IBM’s Project Debater. Photo/Supplied

RelatedArticlesModule - IBM Project Debater

Personal decision-making in a world of disinformation could become a whole lot easier, thanks to IBM’s new AI technology.

If you’ve ever rolled your eyes at some of the embarrassingly off-beam answers that the Siri and Alexa digital assistants come up with, you’ll be impressed at what tech giant IBM delivered last week.

In front of 700 people in a San Francisco theatre, it put a version of its Watson supercomputer up against one of the world’s best debaters. For 25 minutes, man and machine traded arguments over the motion that we should subsidise preschools.

IBM’s Project Debater appeared on stage in the form of a long black tablet, three balls moving on its screen as it spoke in a slightly robotic female voice.

These were not brief answers regurgitated from Wikipedia, as you get from Google or Amazon’s “smart” speakers. For up to four minutes at a time, Project Debater reasoned and argued in favour of the debate resolution, mining 10 billion sentences of reference material to produce a compelling argument for why subsidising preschools helps kids get the best start in life.

As I sat in the audience, it was quite something to behold. IBM claims the only preprogrammed part of its spiel was the opening greeting to its opponent, 31-year-old Oxford- and Cambridge-educated debater Harish Natarajan.

The complexity involved in programming algorithms that can make sense of a question, structure a coherent answer and assemble the facts to back it up is staggering. The computing power required is dozens of times more than is available in your average laptop.

Even more impressive was that Project Debater listened to Natarajan’s clever rhetoric and came back with reasoned replies. But in the end, Natarajan won, with the audience determining via electronic voting that he had the more compelling argument.

Project Debater had facts aplenty, but Natarajan’s arguments were full of what appeals to humans, what Aristotle called pathos.

IBM has pulled these types of stunts before. It pitted its Deep Blue supercomputer against chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov in 1996-97, and its Watson supercomputer competed against top contestants in the quiz show Jeopardy! in 2011.

World chess champion Garry Kasparov after losing the sixth and final game of his match against IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer in 1997. Photo/Getty Images

World chess champion Garry Kasparov after losing the sixth and final game of his match against IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer in 1997. Photo/Getty Images

But this contest was different. Even the Israeli engineers who built Project Debater didn’t seem particularly disappointed that their creation lost. They know it will be incredibly hard for a supercomputer to better the rhetorical skills of a top human debater.

The chess matches between Deep Blue and Kasparov showed that when it comes to complex problems underpinned by maths and logic, supercomputers employing brute-force calculations will eventually win.

But Project Debater suggests there’s a more nuanced coexistence ahead for humans and machines, one in which artificial intelligence augments our abilities rather than replaces them. That’s also a more tenable position for the tech companies that are pursuing artificial intelligence, but increasingly facing a backlash as concerns grow that they will be responsible for putting millions of people out of work.

The question now is what IBM can do with the incredible mix of artificial intelligence and information gathering that Project Debater represents. Could it be the answer to the fake news and misinformation that continue to clog social media?

What if IBM’s machine was put to work analysing tweets and Facebook posts in real-time, rating them for factual accuracy against a high-quality database of articles and ranking them in our newsfeeds based on the results? We could have Project Debater listen to Parliament TV and deliver a fact-check of our politicians’ claims.

Given the exponential nature of increasing computing power, it won’t be that long before something similar to Project Debater is available to us, as a true smart speaker in the home.

Then we’ll have the chance to ask the oracle in the corner just about anything and receive a rational, fact-based answer. Imagine basing our decisions in life on solid evidence rather than dud advice from friends, or simply a hunch.

With fickle, impulsive humans, Project Debater has her work cut out.

Peter Griffin travelled to San Francisco as a guest of IBM.

This article was first published in the March 2, 2019 issue of the New Zealand Listener.

Latest

How to enhance your dining experience – with water
103174 2019-03-22 00:00:00Z Dining

How to enhance your dining experience – with water…

by Metro

A stunning dining experience isn’t just about food and wine. Water plays a big part too.

Read more
Facebook won't give up its insidious practices without a fight
103856 2019-03-22 00:00:00Z Tech

Facebook won't give up its insidious practices wit…

by Peter Griffin

Facebook came under fire for its response to the live-streaming of the Christchurch terror attack, but it's digital nudging that's also concerning.

Read more
In photos: The world unites in solidarity with Christchurch
103800 2019-03-21 15:36:46Z World

In photos: The world unites in solidarity with Chr…

by Lauren Buckeridge

Countries around the world have put on a show of solidarity for the victims of the Christchurch terror attack.

Read more
The tangled path to terrorism
103777 2019-03-21 09:59:55Z Psychology

The tangled path to terrorism

by Marc Wilson

The path that leads people to commit atrocities such as that in Christchurch is twisting and unpredictable, but the journey often begins in childhood.

Read more
If 'This is not New Zealand', let us show it
103768 2019-03-21 09:31:27Z Social issues

If 'This is not New Zealand', let us show it

by The Listener

The little signs among the banks of flowers said, “This is not New Zealand.” They meant, “We thought we were better than this.” We were wrong.

Read more
Extremism is not a mental illness
103785 2019-03-21 00:00:00Z Crime

Extremism is not a mental illness

by The Mental Health Foundation of NZ

Shooting people is not a symptom of a mental illness. White supremacy is not a mental illness.

Read more
PM announces ban on all military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles
103805 2019-03-21 00:00:00Z Crime

PM announces ban on all military-style semi-automa…

by RNZ

Ms Ardern pledged the day after the terrorist massacre that "gun laws will change" and would be announced within 10 days of the attack.

Read more
No mention of right-wing extremist threats in 10 years of GCSB & SIS public docs
103770 2019-03-21 00:00:00Z Politics

No mention of right-wing extremist threats in 10 y…

by Jane Patterson

There is not one specific mention of the threat posed by white supremacists or right-wing nationalism in 10 years of security agency documents.

Read more