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

Question

Professor A: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was originally aimed exclusively at the construction of  thinking machines , that is, computer systems with human like general intelligence. But the difficulty of this goal of general AI has led researchers to shift their focus to producing narrow AI systems: software displaying intelligence regarding specific tasks in relatively narrow domains such as chess. The problem is, narrow AI and general AI are fundamentally and entirely different pursuits. If modeling general intelligence is the objective, Al researchers must redirect themselves toward the original goals of the field and confront the more difficult issues of human-like intelligence.

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. Achievements in this field will continue to flow, and eventually narrow AI will lead to the creation of systems with general intelligence.

On the basis of the given information, select a claim that  Professor A  would most likely  disagree  with, and select a claim that  Professor B  would most likely  disagree  with. Select only two claims, one in each column.

ID: 100332

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

"People" and whether "AI benefits people" is out of scope of the argument.

Professor B says 
"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.

This means that work in AI field has shown results - there are chess playing programs, programs that can translate speech to text and programs that can drive vehicles. 
Are these programs benefitting people today? We don't know. Have they been commercialised? Are people finding them beneficial, we don't know. Are they even meant to benefit people, we don't know. All we know is that research in the field has shown results in the form of programs that are capable of performing these tasks. 
Hence, we can say nothing about what the Professors feel about the 6th statement.

ankur909090 · Answer

Aditi10

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.

Kurtosis · Answer

E is incorrect because the research on narrow AI may or may not benefit real people, but the research may be passively supporting general AI. If you select E, you are strengthening/agreeing to Prof. B

Apt0810 · Answer

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

Cellchat · Answer

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.

altairahmad · Answer

(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 ?

exequielbl · Answer

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.

CEdward · Answer

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...

jabhatta2 · Answer

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.

jabhatta2 · Answer

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 breakthrough s 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

KarishmaB · Answer

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. "

jabhatta2 · Answer

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

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

Fish181 · Answer

"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.

pramodmundhra15 · Answer

I seriously don't understand why the last option for Professor B is not correct ! 
Also the term "significant breakthroughs" is quite an extreme.

masondr · Answer

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.

Gemmie · Answer

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.

kanikaa9 · Answer

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!

Dbrunik · Answer

i missed the quesion on professor B because i assumed that since speech and automated vehicles have been developed, that they have been useful to "real people"

the passage obviously saying nothing about this and the idea that research in the narrow ai filed is likely to lead to breakthroughs is a much better answer.

key takeaway: Don't impart information thats not there. even if its true in real life!

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

Professor A disagrees	Professor B disagrees
		The creation of computer systems that display human-like general intelligence is an important goal.
		The creation of systems that display intelligence regarding specific tasks is an especially important step toward the creation of systems with general intelligence.
		Systems with general intelligence are more difficult to create than are systems with narrow intelligence.
		Research in the narrow Al field is not likely to lead to significant breakthroughs in the general Al field.
		The original aim of AI research was to create systems with general intelligence.
		The research into narrow AI is not producing results that real people can benefit from today.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia