インシデント 21の引用情報

Description: The 2016 Winograd Schema Challenge highlighted how even the most successful AI systems entered into the Challenge were only successful 3% more often than random chance. This incident has been downgraded to an issue as it does not meet current ingestion criteria.
推定: Researchersが開発し提供したAIシステムで、Researchersに影響を与えた

インシデントのステータス

インシデントID
21
レポート数
1
インシデント発生日
2016-07-14
エディタ
Sean McGregor

CSETv0 分類法のクラス

分類法の詳細

Full Description

The Winograd Schema Challenge in 2016 highlighted shortcomings of an artificially intelligent system's ability to understand context. The Challenge is designed to present ambiguous sentences and ask AI systems to decipher them. In the Winograd Scheme Challenge, the two winning entries were successful 48% of the time, while random chance was correct 45% of the time. Quan Liu of the University of Science and Technology of China (partnering with University of Toronto and National Research Council of Canada) and Nicos Isaak of the Open University of Cyprus presented the most successful systems. It is notable that Google and Facebook did not participate.

Short Description

The 2016 Winograd Schema Challenge highlighted how even the most successful AI systems entered into the Challenge were only successful 3% more often than random chance.

Severity

Unclear/unknown

AI System Description

Artificially intelligent systems meant to understand ambiguous English sentences.

Sector of Deployment

Professional, scientific and technical activities

Relevant AI functions

Perception, Cognition, Action

Location

New York, NY

Named Entities

Winograd Schema Challenge, University of Science and Technology of China, Quan Liu, University of Toronto, National Research Council of Canada, Nicos Isaak, Open University of Cyprus

Technology Purveyor

Quan Liu, Nicos Isaak

Beginning Date

2016-01-01T00:00:00.000Z

Ending Date

2016-01-01T00:00:00.000Z

Near Miss

Unclear/unknown

Intent

Unclear

Lives Lost

No

GMF 分類法のクラス

分類法の詳細

Known AI Goal

Question Answering

Known AI Technology

Language Modeling, Distributional Learning

Potential AI Technology

Transformer

Potential AI Technical Failure

Generalization Failure, Dataset Imbalance, Underfitting, Context Misidentification

CSETv1 分類法のクラス

分類法の詳細

インシデントレポート

レポートタイムライン

AI Incident Database Incidents Converted to Issues
github.com · 2022

The following former incidents have been converted to "issues" following an update to the incident definition and ingestion criteria.

21: Tougher Turing Test Exposes Chatbots’ Stupidity

Description: The 2016 Winograd Schema Challenge highli…

バリアント

「バリアント」は既存のAIインシデントと同じ原因要素を共有し、同様な被害を引き起こし、同じ知的システムを含んだインシデントです。バリアントは完全に独立したインシデントとしてインデックスするのではなく、データベースに最初に投稿された同様なインシデントの元にインシデントのバリエーションとして一覧します。インシデントデータベースの他の投稿タイプとは違い、バリアントではインシデントデータベース以外の根拠のレポートは要求されません。詳細についてはこの研究論文を参照してください

よく似たインシデント

テキスト類似度による

Did our AI mess up? Flag the unrelated incidents