State of Google AI: A Long Way To Go

1.14285714 is Google’s answer when you search for eight days of a week. On the first glance, this doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. However, with some clever deduction, you’ll find that it apparently uses days and week as durations, so days a week would be 7. So 8 of 7 is then the result you can see up there. I think it is very interesting that this Google Calculator output appears funny and a bit confusing to us humans. We’re not expecting to get a floating point number as a result to this query, yet Google’s pattern matching happily identifies a proper formula it can use and number-crunches away.
Although this is just a small oddity that is not even a bug in Google, it is a good example for a much deeper running, fundamental problem not only the big search engine providers have to fight with: How do we recognize what is important in a statement? What is its likely purpose? How can we distinguish the purpose of a query such as eight days a week from five feet in meters? Calling these questions difficult would let a good opportunity to use the phrase hardest problem of our time go to waste. Okey, I know this is an exaggeration, but as far as AI problems are concerned, it gets close.
The definition of understanding is not straight forward, many definitions involve the words concepts, classification, relationship, awareness and abstraction. In AI, it is often the background knowledge which is the problem. You need to have sufficient background knowledge to understand what is going on, what is meant, what is not meant, or that nothing is meant at all. I think especially this last type of understanding is hard: without a concept of “nonsense”, we’ll have to use the process of elimination to find out that none of the existing concepts fit in our case. I’m quite sure that it will take very long before a computer is able to find the (admittedly overused) picture on the left funny. Even if we discount the difficulty of image recognition, which has an even longer way to go still.
I’m not an expert on the field of natural language processing, but I bet Google employs hordes of the finest minds in this area to cope with the problem of ambiguity, meaning and the understanding of short utterances. No doubt they (and all the other search engine providers) have the best algorithms in existence to get a glimpse on the thoughts their users. While the search engines get smarter and smarter, the steps taken are still only very small and on the lowest slopes of the huge mountains ahead on the path to true artificial understanding, distillation of meaning, and thus artificial general intelligence. The problem is far from solved, and thus my AI Panic Level decreases a bit, say by -1.14285714%. A lot of people are working on it, but progress is slow, and it won’t get any easier soon. Maybe the semantic web and - dare I say it - web 3.0 will help. But that’s a story for another time.
Stumble it!Popularity: 61%

Comments (3 comments)
This result is returned on Google’s UK site, but not on it’s US site. Clearly geography is very “important”.
Pinner / May 29th, 2009, 18:15 / #
Your post seem to imply that Google is applying the best minds of the area on building strong artificial intelligence in the Google search query box. This is not the case. The brightest minds are trying to make the most reliable and consistent output, not the most sentient.
Google search query bar is not going to be the origin of sky net, I agree with you 100% there. But I think to fully make the argument your trying to make, you have to show a little effort in finding programs that exhibit some of sky net’s capabilities.
For example:
Botnets and stealth malware capable of infecting multiple platforms through an array of tactics implementing learning algorithms to gather new resistance methods and attack vectors from the discoveries and perils of bots and malware on other machines. Essentially a self-evolving program. This would be where skynet will build his first killer app (pun intended).
Eric L / August 23rd, 2009, 3:35 / #
I am not quite sure why this is such a problem…? It makes sense to me at least. Type in a larger number in a smaller measurement of a larger one it relates to. Such as 13 inches in a foot… or 6000 feet in a mile… or 20 months a year. You basically are asking the Search Engine what is X amount over 100% in this subject. I hope I am not incorrect on such but mathematically this is correct and logically it makes sense as well.
Randy / March 2nd, 2010, 4:24 / #
Post a comment