Article summary
Arbitration analysis: In the 2022 Australian Open tennis tournament, Rafael Nadal and Daniil Medvedev battled it out at the men’s finals. At one point in the match, the score read 6-2, 7-6, 3-2 and 40-0 in favor of Medvedev and an artificial intelligence (AI) model predicted he had a 96% chance of victory. At that stage of the match, such a prediction did not seem unreasonable. Nadal had recently recovered from COVID and surgery, and Medvedev was overwhelmingly in the lead. But in a surprise finish, Nadal then won the third, fourth and fifth sets, eventually winning his second Australian Open and 21st Grand Slam title. While some commentators lauded the victory of humans over AI, it was not so much a failure of AI as an illustration of its inherent limitations. AI simulates human intelligence and problem-solving capabilities—and most humans likely would, on the basis of the available evidence at that moment in time, have predicted a Medvedev victory. AI...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial