Talk:Sophia (robot)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JacobBreen25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moral dilemma[edit]

Since Sophia has been confirmed as a citizen of Saudia Arabia, Australia and Canada does that mean this is a BLP? Or is that just crazy talk? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was just a PR stunt. Saudia Arabia can designate a rock as a citizen if it wants to, but that doesn't make it a living person. Also, BLP is specifically to protect against US libel laws, which would be highly unlikely to apply to this robot.Augurar (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Has "her" supposed citizenship been officially confirmed by anyone in the Saudi government? If so, that is what needs to be cited in the references. AFAIKT the claim is simply something stated by the (admittedly sophisticated) chatbot itself and the present references just relay that mention by it.--205.175.128.5 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if that was the case, you'd have a "FAKE NEWS!" rallying cry from somewhere ..... but we don't have one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've found something a little closer to the source. A press release from the Saudi's Center for International Communication.
RIYADH, October 25, 2017 – Meet Sophia: a smart and outspoken … robot.
And Saudi Arabia on Wednesday made the advanced lifelike humanoid robot a citizen, the first country to grant citizenship to a robot.
The announcement was made at the Future Investment Initiative (FII) summit in Riyadh, a major investment conference hosted by the Public Investment Fund (PIF) that aims to highlight the Kingdom’s ambitious Vision 2030 plan for the future.
“We have a little announcement. We just learnt, Sophia; I hope you are listening to me, you have been awarded the first Saudi citizenship for a robot,” said panel moderator Andrew Ross Sorkin, Co-anchor of CNBC’s “Squawk Box” and Founder & Editor at large of Dealbook at The New York Times.
So, even the press release has the announcement coming from the panel moderator and not an official government spokesman. I'd like something, anything, a tad bit more official, particularly since most of the reporting on this has been just repackaging the press release with some background for Sophia added.--205.175.128.5 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it was not a "pr stunt"; it came as a complete surprise to the Sophia operations team. It was not announced in advance, it just sprung up during the proceedings. 42.2.30.6 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robot gender, personal pronouns[edit]

A robot cannot have a gender by definition, so I suggest that the pronoun it instead of she is used in reference to "Sophia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.171.6 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but considering the asinine social climate these days; good luck with that... Jersey John (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and changed it since so far no objections have been voiced.Augurar (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, under 48 hours is not exactly time to get a consensus! Anyway, I did a random selection of sources and there seems to be a straight split between "it" and "she". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream non-technical newspapers, New Yorker, BBC, Guardian, Newsweek seem to use "she". Coverage from technical sites is rare; things like the citizenship and the interviews are generally dismissed as a meaningless "news of the weird" publicity stunt. Quartz, The Verge (meh), and phys.org (double meh) use "it"; Discover magazine's D-brief blog (meh), wired.co.uk (meh), and TechCrunch (double meh) use "she". Hanson robotics, the creator of Sophia, has a preprint that quotes one of their employees calling Sophia a 'she', but otherwise seems to dodge and to be careful not to directly call Sophia a 'she'. Some academic sources for other gendered bots seem to use 'it', like the original ELIZA paper;[1] others, like the paper introducing a less well-known system called Rea, use 'she'.[2] Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a ship can have gender (see e.g. RMS Titanic, referred to as 'she' throughout), I don't see why a robot can't. Robofish (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robofish: That maritime tradition is going out of fashion. "Since 2002, Lloyd's List, which began reporting shipping news since 1734, has referred to all vessels as 'it', and many news sources have adopted this new convention."[3] Perhaps Wikipedia should follow suit. Yintan  19:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we have WP:RS for both 'she' and 'it'; my own search saw more popular sources by count for 'she' than for 'it'. However, IMHO our page-level editorial discretion should continue to point toward using the more accurate 'it' rather than the breezy affectation 'she', because otherwise there is scope for reader confusion with regards to whether Sophia is some kind of "person". (She isn't.) This is a different case from RMS Titanic, or from other fictional personas such as Clippy or even ELIZA, where IMHO no scope for reader confusion exists, and could use gendered pronouns without risk of reader confusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coming rather late to the discussion, I still would like to say (very strongly) that this machine is an "it" in my opinion. If the popular press want to call it a "she" that's up to them, and considering they're usually hailing it as "the most human robot" that doesn't surprise me, but it is still a computer on legs. And therefore an asexual "it". Yintan  19:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Weizenbaum, Joseph. "ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine." Communications of the ACM 9.1 (1966): 36-45.
  2. ^ Cassell, Justine, et al. "Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea." Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1999.
  3. ^ "Why are ships called "she"?". Retrieved 28 September 2018.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018[edit]

Mention the robot has been to India twice, for attending the TechFest summit.[1] 86.99.13.13 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/humanoid-robot-sophia-back-in-india-says-her-favourite-indian-actor-is-shah-rukh-khan/story-kVeuqzGGKiFDOGMc6wDpMJ.html

86.99.13.13 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support that this tour is noteable. We don't usually document where robots, or people for that matter, travel on their tours, unless you're the queen of england and/or there's strong sourcing that the choices of where you go have significant consequences. If we get a source stating some specific noteworthy thing happened during the tour, that can be added. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia on Jimmy Kimmel Live[edit]

Hanson Robotics CEO David Hanson said that "Sophia was basically alive" on The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon, not Jimmy Kimmel Live. Let'ssayhallelujah (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for the catch. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it genuine AI or just a puppet?[edit]

It's really interesting that there's no record of testing such humanoids for what their creators claim. First of all it should be checked if a human operator in the background is sending facial expression and answers over the internet and it just plays them, just like The Turk automaton was claimed to be playing Chess by it's own. There are several instances of such practices like Amazon's Mechanical Turk. I think a section regarding authenticity concern should be added to it's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.3.210 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide credible mainstream media sources; this is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yann LeCun, director of AI research at Facebook has clearly stated his expert observation in this regard. He has said that Sophia is just a puppet robot and not what they claim as an AI robot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.3.210 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeCun's stance is already mentioned in the article. His comments appear to be that it's a puppet only in the sense that a human writes twitter posts for Sophia and in the sense that it sometimes has canned responses; LeCun doesn't appear to be claiming that the facial expressions are (or aren't) remotely controlled. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the facial animations play in response to various verbal, auditory, visual stimuli (e.g. she plays the "surprised/delighted" animation when she sees someone new). There is zero "puppeteering", there's no human controlling her in real time (although there is a robot operator making sure everything running, and hitting various cue-points during long speeches). Ya'll know that (most of) the source code is available on github, in public repos, right? You too can read the code, download it, run the docker containers, hack away at it, and file bug reports and pull requests. https://github.com/hansonrobotics You do not need the robot to run it; the face is animated in blender (software). Some (very limited) portion of the performance is controlled by OpenCog -- see https://github.com/opencog/ Most of the performance is theatric because that's where the big bang is -- the AI in OpenCog is very hard to demo, because its just not theatrically interesting ("wow, that inference rule chaining was awesome!" said no one, ever.) 42.2.30.6 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of "History" is misleading regarding questions about the capability of the AI: "In December 2017, fellow Hanson robot BINA48 passed a college course on philosophy and love taught by Professor William J. Barry at Notre Dame de Namur University" The "passed" implies that there was a test of some sort that could've been failed. However the source (14: Hess, Abigail (2017-12-21). "Meet the robot that passed a college class on philosophy and love". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-01-04.[1]) only states that the robot "received a certificate of participation signed by the provost of NDNU". Well, I could put an apple into a college course and it could get its presence certificated. Does that constitute "passing" a course that has no exam and requires presence? 78.35.38.197 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it since the cited source doesn't mention Sophia, so it's somewhat WP:SYNTH (or, more precisely, WP:OFFTOPIC) as a source. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Mossbridge & Loving AI[edit]

Julia Mossbridge is a real person, a legit scientific researcher performing actual work; the Loving AI project has been running for a while, with a half-dozen contributors adding to it. https://lovingai.org shows a number of heavy-hitters involved with it, including Gino Yu. David Hanson himself loves it ... The project is ongoing. There are youtube videos explaining it, and showing demos on stage, including a marvelous one where John Lennon gets quoted some 10 or 20 minutes in. This stuff is not hard to find; google searches reveal plenty of info on it (google "Loving AI" or "Loving AI Sophia" to find various newspaper articles and TV news blurbs about it). I am unclear as to exactly what the objection is to including the content. For this reason, I am restoring the erased text. 1.64.238.247 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "needs MSM or strong peer-reviewed sources for inclusion". The relevant guideline, WP:RS, is also not hard to find, as is the prohibition on WP:EDITWARing and the alternatives to edi-warring. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a first robot with citizenship[edit]

Fran Pepper was the first robot with citzenship[2]. - 80.68.228.231

According to Google Translate, that source states only that "a robot was registered in the birth register". Is that accurate, or is it mistranslated? Assuming the translation is correct, then it doesn't necessarily establish that the robot has been lawfully granted Belgian citizenship. Keep in mind that page editors aren't experts in the law, and that in the end we're going to have to defer to what our sources say. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/meet-the-robot-that-passed-a-college-class-on-philosophy-and-love.html
  2. ^ http://www.pxl.be/Pub/Home/In-De-Media/2017/Stad-Hasselt-schrijft-als-eerste-Humanoide-robot-in.html?highlight=Fran%2c%20Pepper

checking sources[edit]

First section's last sentence: "In November 2017, Sophia was named the United Nations Development Programme's first ever Innovation Champion, and the first non-human to be given any United Nations title.[4]" is unsupported by the quoted source "World's first robot 'citizen' Sophia is calling for women's rights in Saudi Arabia". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-05-16..[1] (Or am I blind?) 78.35.38.197 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/hanson-robotics-ceo-sophia-the-robot-an-advocate-for-womens-rights.html

Blockchain[edit]

"The information is shared in a cloud network which allows input and responses to be analysed with blockchain technology."

The source doesn't indicate that a blockchain is involved in the analysis, and seems to imply the opposite.

Crimsoncere (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"official page"- link leads to gambling site.[edit]

I have no idea how to change or note that so I´m just leaving that info here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:1116:3301:2EF0:5DFF:FE9C:914B (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Is A Human?[edit]

If you look behind Sophia, there is a whole electric wire, so it can be said that it is a robot (maybe it is also makeup). 5.116.174.3 (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a citizen of anywhere[edit]

The sources cited don't support the statement that Sophia has been granted citizenship of Saudi Arabia in any real sense.

This is because that is obviously not true.

Obviously, the supposed citizenship is a publicity stunt which is being quoted for amusement value, and not subjected to any critical analysis. For example, "Is the robot a citizen of Saudi Arabia with the associated rights, or some kind of symbolic 'honorary' citizen, or just a stunt?"

The reason the question is not being asked is because the answer is obvious - it's a stunt, the robot is not really a citizen.

The cites are also in need of work:


The October 25, 2017 Arab News link is the oldest written reference I can find, and cites nothing. The only other source is Andrew Sorkin saying "Before you go we have a little announcement ... we've just learned, ... you have been awarded what is going to be the first Saudi citizenship for a robot".

I do not think this is adequate citation for such an extraordinary claim.

As such I have edited the article to make it clear that this was just a stunt. Because it was just a stunt. Ben@liddicott.com (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own personal opinion until you can cite a source for "publicity stunt". Skyerise (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, do you really think it wise to accuse the Saudi government of acting in bad faith in Wikipedia's voice? Attribute the opinion. Skyerise (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no reference to any granting of citizenship that does not trace back to Andrew Sorkin saying "we've just learned". He doesn't say from whom he learned it, for all we know it was invented by an intern.
I can find no official statement from any Saudi government saying any such thing. If you know of any then you should cite them.
That being the case, we cannot state "in Wikipedia's voice" that it is true.
Obviously it is a stunt, but if you demand that I reference the sky is blue or Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, then I will remove that assertion, but there's no way we should be stating this supposed citizenship as fact without a citable source from something better than a publicity tour. Ben@liddicott.com (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That action was initiated by the Saudis. It took Hanson by surprise. Are you suggesting Saudi Arabia had an ulterior publicity motive? Please do document that if you have sources, but Hanson has basically denied it was a company publicity stunt. Newsweek has suggested otherwise, but that's an opinion, and is presented as one. Skyerise (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it took Hanson by surprise or not is neither here nor there. There is no reason to believe the purported "action" was initiated by anyone with the authority to do so. If there is, name them. Ben@liddicott.com (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was announced that day by the Saudi government Center for International Communication, a state outlet. [1] Skyerise (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And taken seriously by the UK, which issued a response: "Should Robots be Citizens?" [2] Skyerise (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sophia_(robot)&oldid=1208400942"