The perceptron machine Rosenblatt showed Kurzweil in 1962 could not perform any of the things that, as Dormehl recounts, had been claimed at the time and ridiculed.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
True: technical reports or historical accounts of the perceptron hardware or software Rosenblatt had around 1962 (e.g., the Mark I Perceptron) show it could do none of the ambitious feats claimed in the press at the time (such as walking, talking, seeing and recognizing people, or being conscious of its existence), and was limited to simple pattern classification. Mostly true: it could do essentially none of them, apart from a trivial or rudimentary version of one claimed capability. Mixed: it could perform a meaningful subset of the claimed capabilities. Mostly false: it could perform most of the claimed capabilities in some form. False: documentation shows it could perform the claimed capabilities.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (3)
-
E1 Mark I Perceptron - Wikipedia Wikipedia · 8 October 2024
“With the first version of the Mark I Perceptron as early as 1958, Rosenblatt demonstrated a simple binary classification experiment, namely distinguishing between sheets of paper marked on the right versus those marked on the left side.”
-
E2 Professor's perceptron paved the way for AI - 60 years too soon | Cornell Chronicle Cornell Chronicle · 25 September 2019
“After 50 trials, the computer taught itself to distinguish cards marked on the left from cards marked on the right.”
-
E3 Warning. Data Inadequate. Resilience.org · 8 February 2024
“that it expects will be able to walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself and be conscious of its existence.”
Reasoning
E4 records the claim that the perceptron was expected to walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself and be conscious of its existence. E2 and E3, both independent, describe the Mark I Perceptron's demonstrations as simple binary classification, such as telling cards marked on the left from cards marked on the right. That supports the view that it could do none of the ambitious feats, apart from a rudimentary form of visual pattern discrimination. The evidence covers the early (1958) demonstrations rather than the 1962 machine specifically, so the verdict is mostly true rather than fully true.
Cite this claim
Ray Kurzweil, “The perceptron machine Rosenblatt showed Kurzweil in 1962 could not perform any of the things that, as Dormehl recounts, had been claimed at the time and ridiculed.” (said March 2017). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_b03842e8be15, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_b03842e8be15
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Ray Kurzweil
-
Mostly false
“That was not true a year ago. But that’s true today.”
-
Mixed
“AI hallucinations are still there, but are becoming much less frequent.”
AI hallucinations persist but are becoming much less frequent.
-
Mostly true
“And it’s going very, very quickly — at an exponential rate”
AI progress is advancing very quickly, at an exponential rate.
-
Mostly true
“It was not quite as good, but you could recognize it as Mozart or as Chopin.”
-
Mostly true
“Yes, it was very much for AI.”
The prizes received by Geoffrey Hinton and by Demis Hassabis and John Jumper were very much for AI.
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.