Last visit was: 12 Sep 2024, 02:37 It is currently 12 Sep 2024, 02:37
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally

Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 118 [58]
Given Kudos: 197
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15298
Own Kudos [?]: 67986 [10]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
General Discussion
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1422
Own Kudos [?]: 4645 [2]
Given Kudos: 1228
Location: India
Intern
Joined: 13 May 2017
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [3]
Given Kudos: 209
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
1
Kudos
2
Bookmarks

Professor B didn't said anything about welfare of people.So it can't be the answer.

Such questions reasoning resonates with the idea from general thing to specific example to specific example to general thing .
In OG you can find a lot of question on this concept.
so coming back to question .
Professor A : against of general to specific .
Professor B : support specific example to general thing.
For solution just reverse their analogy and you can have your answer.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2018
Posts: 348
Own Kudos [?]: 478 [1]
Given Kudos: 94
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
Professor A Disagrees with the point B in the list : The creation of systems that display intelligence regarding specific tasks is an especially important step toward the creation of systems with general
intelligence.

Since for the Prof A general AI & narrow AI are two altogether different pursuits so anything which is coming from the narrow AI background does not suits Prof A

Professor B Disagrees with the point D in the list: Research in the narrow AI field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general AI field.

Since Prof B is saying that research in narrow AI will ultimately lead to the development in the areas of general AI. In short both of these concepts are inter linked

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2020
Posts: 37
Own Kudos [?]: 44 [2]
Given Kudos: 30
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V28
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
2
Kudos
I have a problem with the second column; the answer is out of the following IMO:

:- Research in the narrow AI field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general AI field.

:-The research into narrow AI is not producing results that real people can benefit from today.

When in the stem does it talk about significant breakthroughs. Narrow AI could lead to small developments in the general AI field. You are inferring that the stem says significant.

And yes, you may also be doing some 'inferring' with the second statement. The statement talks about real people. But when does narrow AI do anything but benefit real people?! Chess, programs that translate speech to text, programs that can drive automated vehicles, all of these benefit real people. I feel as if this is even less of an inference step to make than the first (IMO).

Help would be appreciated.
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2017
Posts: 269
Own Kudos [?]: 77 [0]
Given Kudos: 406
Location: Saudi Arabia
GMAT 1: 700 Q47 V39
GPA: 3.36
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
(E) is more likely to be true.

'Significant breakthrough' is a bit extreme. There is nothing to suggest of the sort in the original para. It only says 'eventually narrow AI will lead to the creation of systems with general intelligence'. This 'eventually' can be through significant or unsignificant breakthroughs.

But the examples 'such as chess-playing programs that can defeat any human, programs that translate speech to text, and programs that can drive automated vehicles', all benefit 'real people'.

Expert opinion ?
Intern
Joined: 02 May 2020
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [2]
Given Kudos: 3
Location: Chile
GPA: 4
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Cellchat
I have a problem with the second column; the answer is out of the following IMO:

:- Research in the narrow AI field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general AI field.

:-The research into narrow AI is not producing results that real people can benefit from today.

When in the stem does it talk about significant breakthroughs. Narrow AI could lead to small developments in the general AI field. You are inferring that the stem says significant.

And yes, you may also be doing some 'inferring' with the second statement. The statement talks about real people. But when does narrow AI do anything but benefit real people?! Chess, programs that translate speech to text, programs that can drive automated vehicles, all of these benefit real people. I feel as if this is even less of an inference step to make than the first (IMO).

Help would be appreciated.

I also had the last one for proffessor B.
Now I realize that the prompt never talks about real people nor people, but about "real results", therefore we can't assume that narrow AI is actually beneffiting real people.
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1236
Own Kudos [?]: 214 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
For Prof. B., it is certainly ominous that the last choice is not marked as correct. The examples that he/she sites clearly reflect some of the benefits of narrow AI so E is contradictory...
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1318
Own Kudos [?]: 232 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - this is really a CR question in the IR format (but it's still a CR question)

For the 2nd column - i chose option F because professor B clearly said :

AI work is producing real results today, such as chess-playing programs that can defeat any human, programs that translate speech to text, and programs that can drive automated vehicles.

These programs that can drive automated vehicles / programs that translate speech / chess programs that can defeat any human -- all help real people (it not too much of stretch to think that a program that can drive automated vehicles will help people, I don't think )

Hence why not option F for the 2nd column.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1318
Own Kudos [?]: 232 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - The answer is option D for the 2nd column

Playing devil's advocate, where in the stem does professor B talk about significant breakthroughs going to happen ? The word "significant breakthrough" seems to be too strong in light of what professor B actually stated.

All professor B stated was "..... Achievements in narrow AI will continue to flow, and eventually narrow AI will lead to the creation of systems with general intelligence."

Significant breakthroughs
may or may not happen this way. If anything, if you keep building off of the past achievements -- if anything : the chances of significant breakthroughs are small. Significant breakthroughs may or may be noticed along the way if you build off of past achievements

So how can one selection option D for sure when Significant breakthroughs may or may not happen this way - we cannot be sure
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15298
Own Kudos [?]: 67986 [1]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
jabhatta2
Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja - The answer is option D for the 2nd column

Playing devil's advocate, where in the stem does professor B talk about significant breakthroughs going to happen ? The word "significant breakthrough" seems to be too strong in light of what professor B actually stated.

All professor B stated was "..... Achievements in narrow AI will continue to flow, and eventually narrow AI will lead to the creation of systems with general intelligence."

Significant breakthroughs
may or may not happen this way. If anything, if you keep building off of the past achievements -- if anything : the chances of significant breakthroughs are small. Significant breakthroughs may or may be noticed along the way if you build off of past achievements

So how can one selection option D for sure when Significant breakthroughs may or may not happen this way - we cannot be sure

You are not asked what Professor B said. You are given his views. Now you need to extrapolate them to find what he is likely to disagree with.
He believes that narrow AI research will lead to general intelligence. So he is likely to disagree with "narrow AI will not lead to significant breakthroughs in general intelligence. "
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1318
Own Kudos [?]: 232 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]

You are not asked what Professor B said. You are given his views. Now you need to extrapolate them to find what he is likely to disagree with.
He believes that narrow AI research will lead to general intelligence. So he is likely to disagree with "narrow AI will not lead to significant breakthroughs in general intelligence. "

Hi VeritasKarishma - I am getting confused with the double negative.

Could you go over how to disentangle the double negative knot here ?

How are you so sure that professor B will disagree that NO significant breakthrough will happen
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15298
Own Kudos [?]: 67986 [1]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
jabhatta2

You are not asked what Professor B said. You are given his views. Now you need to extrapolate them to find what he is likely to disagree with.
He believes that narrow AI research will lead to general intelligence. So he is likely to disagree with "narrow AI will not lead to significant breakthroughs in general intelligence. "

Hi VeritasKarishma - I am getting confused with the double negative.

Could you go over how to disentangle the double negative knot here ?

How are you so sure that professor B will disagree that NO significant breakthrough will happen

The following are correct:

Professor B believes that narrow AI will lead to general intelligence.
So he agrees that narrow AI research will lead to breakthrough in general intelligence.
So he disagrees that narrow AI research will not lead to breakthrough in general intelligence.

The double negative cancels out to give us positive.
Manager
Joined: 13 Dec 2023
Status:Applying in R1 of 2024 to t15
Affiliations: University of Tennessee
Posts: 132
Own Kudos [?]: 299 [0]
Given Kudos: 46
Location: United States (CO)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT Focus 1:
605 Q76 V84 DI80
GMAT Focus 2:
615 Q78 V86 DI78
GPA: 3.62
WE:Analyst (Consumer Products)
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
"Professor B: Narrow AI work is producing real results today, such as chess-playing programs that can defeat any human, programs that translate speech to text, and programs that can drive automated vehicles."

How on earth would professor b not disagree with: "The research into narrow AI is not producing results that real people can benefit from today."

People don't benefit from text to speech or self driving cars as the professor cites? This question exemplifies that the testmakers are not perfect nor are their questions. It's easy to get mad at them but the takeaway is that you need to think like the testmakers to get even their erroneous questions correct. ­

I understand it says "most likely" disagrees with. I think that for Prof. B they are equally as likely. If someone wants to explain the subtle nuance on why the correct answer choice is more likely I welcome it.­
Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2022
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [1]
Given Kudos: 45
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I seriously don't understand why the last option for Professor B is not correct !
Also the term "significant breakthroughs" is quite an extreme.
Intern
Joined: 05 Apr 2024
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 151
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
It honestly seems like the logic GMAC uses is inconsistent. How is option F incorrect for Professor B? It states that "real results today" are being produced and gives some examples like an automated car and a text-to-speech translator. All of these examples listed are clearly results that people will benefit from if they use them. Option F states "not producing results that real people can benefit from today." It's evident that real results are being produced. The main argument given against this question is that we don't know if anyone is benefitting from these results. This isn't relevant as it's stated "can benefit from today" which means there is a possibility. Any logical person can see that people can benefit from these results such as a text-to-speech translator and see there is a possibility that someone "can benefit from today". The results have been made -> someone can benefit from them seems to be a very clear and logical path. This seems to be a flaw and IMO should be changed. If option F stated a different word such as "do benefit" "have benefited" or "will" then it would be clear-cut, but "can" brings too much ambiguity and does not shut down any logical connections that Professor B would disagree with.
Director
Joined: 19 Dec 2021
Posts: 577
Own Kudos [?]: 168 [0]
Given Kudos: 75
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Focus 1:
695 Q87 V84 DI83
GPA: 3.55
Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
Professor A would disagree with: The creation of systems that display intelligence regarding specific tasks is an especially important step toward the creation of systems with general intelligence.

Professor A believes that narrow AI and general AI are entirely different pursuits. This claim directly contradicts Professor A's view that focusing on narrow AI is not the best path to achieve general AI.

Professor B would disagree with: Research in the narrow Al field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general Al field.

Professor B emphasizes the real-world benefits of narrow AI and believes it will eventually lead to general AI. This claim contradicts Professor B's view of progress in narrow AI ultimately paving the way for general AI.

---
Honestly, I don't understand why "The research into narrow AI is not producing results that real people can benefit from today." is not the answer for the statement which Professor B disagrees with

It might be that they make it tricky by using the phrase "real people can benefit" while the passage only mention "real results". That's why I chose "Research in the narrow Al field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general Al field".

However, I still don't understand why E is wrong.

­
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2023
Posts: 53
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 134
Location: India
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
Gemmie - even I was confused between option C and F for professor B. I didn't select C because of 'significant breakthroughs' is just too extreme, but then I see it is the correct answer. I think nothing is mentioned about people benefitting. Its surely a tricky one!
Gemmie
Professor A would disagree with: The creation of systems that display intelligence regarding specific tasks is an especially important step toward the creation of systems with general intelligence.

Professor A believes that narrow AI and general AI are entirely different pursuits. This claim directly contradicts Professor A's view that focusing on narrow AI is not the best path to achieve general AI.

Professor B would disagree with: Research in the narrow Al field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general Al field.

Professor B emphasizes the real-world benefits of narrow AI and believes it will eventually lead to general AI. This claim contradicts Professor B's view of progress in narrow AI ultimately paving the way for general AI.

---
Honestly, I don't understand why "The research into narrow AI is not producing results that real people can benefit from today." is not the answer for the statement which Professor B disagrees with

It might be that they make it tricky by using the phrase "real people can benefit" while the passage only mention "real results". That's why I chose "Research in the narrow Al field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general Al field".

However, I still don't understand why E is wrong.

­
­
Re: Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally [#permalink]
Moderators:
Math Expert
95475 posts
Retired Moderator
997 posts
RC & DI Moderator
11510 posts