@mhoover Congrats for advancing to the next round!@xtomjames Great job getting so far in the tournament! Hope to see you in November (last chance to qualify for a free entry at Dec' $5,000 Championship): https://www.qallout.com/tournament
You guys look similar.
@enzilag :rofl: true
@enzilag Genius has a look
@mhoover GENIUS wins again!
I want to watch this debate happen: https://www.qallout.com/debate/2661-suits-are-the-most-all-round-practical-clothes-a-man-can-ever-wear/live
@clayk This one is one I could be a pro on.
@xtomjames Thank you for the debate. I enjoyed it.
@mhoover It was interesting, I think that many of these debates are so broad it is actually difficult to discuss. You brought up some great points.
I really could have used a definition of "artificial intelligence" from either of you and/or a discussion of what that term actually means.
@citizenthom I defined it in my opening statement. About 20 seconds in
@citizenthom would it had been more helpful if I touched on it again after the prepared statement? Feedback is appreciated
@mhoover A dictionary one, yeah, but there's so much meat in JUST the what-it-is and what-it-isn't even WITHIN that dictionary definition. Both sides had many examples of "AI" where there is a legitimate question, "is that AI, or is that human-assisted machine learning?" Or, "is that so distinct from human intelligence as to constitute a distinct advantage vs. human capital?" Then again I work in cybersecurity and I'm asking a heck of a lot from half an hour. Also I had a debate of my own earlier tonight and I REALLY should know better than to have caffeine after 8.
@mhoover Hope my comment above answered your question (which apparently was posted as I typed).I did vote Pro on balance here.
@citizenthom it did. I’m always open to advice from a champion. I’m still new at this!
Great debate guys. I'll start by saying that I actually personally side with Con here but I cast my vote for pro on account of the quality of argumentation. @mhoover Pro: You did a great job of defining your criteria of power and demonstrating how AI will accordingly benefit the countries which lead in its development and implementation. I do think you that you could have done a better job addressing Cons points about the other areas of power which may prove more vital than the three you defined, but ultimately you won the argument for me because where you clearly defined your terms and how you reach your conclusions, con fell short in that area a bit for me. You likewise did well in addressing human adaptability to mitigate the economic struggles of an ever increasingly automated workforce, but in this regard, you left yourself open to an attack which I was waiting for Con to make... but he never did. More on that below.@xtomjames Con: You did a good job of formulating a generalized argument for AI's potential downfalls, detriments, and limitations. I also like the way you focus on societal cohesion and workforce engagement as vital measures of power which could be undermined by AI. But overall my critique of your argumentation lies in the lack of strong definition of these aspects, and a lack of a concrete way in which AI would undermine them aside from citing Moore's law and addressing unemployment due to automation. You did say there could be unforseen detriments and weaknesses, but in light of pro's clearly defined advantages this was not a very potent presentation. In my eyes another weakness of your argument was your failure to steer the debate's definition of power, or give strong refutations of Pro's arguments for how AI will work in exactly the way he described. You gave a decent "we can't know that for sure", but he already won me over in that area by showing how we could strongly infer it. Now as I said I do agree with the con side of this argument and I'll tell you why I ultimately refrained from casting my vote as such: I do believe the lynchpin of this argument to be human capital, just as you do, but in regards to Pro's defense of human adaptability to historical waves of automation and paradigm shift, as well as currently decreasing unemployment to offset your claim of an existing trend -- you did relatively little to go against it, and the one point I was waiting for you to drive home was how AI is fundamentally different from all precedent of human adaptation, not because of the speed at which technology increases... but in that human adaptability is the *exact* capital it seeks to replace!! Think about it. All other precedents of automation have succeeded in replicating some human trait; strength, precision, speed, dexterity, calculation, etc... but the reason we have been able to adapt and fill new positions in the changing economic landscape is because our *adaptability* has never been matched by a machine. Adaptability is the core of human capital, and if AI sufficiently advances to make human adaptability easy to replicate and cheap to maintain, which is ultimately the entire idea behind it... the entire world flips on its head. Any country in which this is implemented widespread will not just have "unknown detriments" it will have severe, predictable problems. Without serious regulations and government interventions (which would render this debate a moot point, as that would severely limit advancement in the field); unemployment will skyrocket to a majority at the very least, and the adaptability of AI systems will likely prevent the resurgence of a human presence in the workforce all together; There could very well be an immediate and irreparable split into two clases; those who posess AI technology, and the unneeded humans left behind (you did briefly address this possibility, but did not focus on the gravity of it). Shantytowns, riots, slums and no-go zones will erupt overnight, it will become a dystopian nightmare within months, and the use of automated police and riot control systems would turn it into an all-out war of man against machine. This hellish scenario is at the core of the arguments you were making, but you never outright said it. Elon Musk as well as other AI alarmists have written volumes of material on the very real and predictible dangers of widespread, advanced AI implementation, in fact *specifically* addressing an AI arms race the likes of which this debate's contention implies. But in failing to address these head on as real possibilities, and failing to drive them home, you allowed your opponent to sway me to his side. All in all this was a very interesting debate and I hope to watch both of you debate in the future! Note: I'm not a judge, just a community member explaining my vote.
@daveykanabus With the limited time and multiple points to be addressed, unfortunately I didn't have a chance to formulate so precisely what you stated, however that was my implied point. Thank you for clarifying it so exactly.
@daveykanabus Also, let's bear in mind that I didn't want to drive this into an argument over economic stability in the human vs automation debate, which, while related, doesn't directly answer the question of whether or not a country that leads in AI will be most powerful or not.
@daveykanabus Excellent analysis! In case you decide to sit any of our future tournaments, you might want to consider judging :-)
Ultimately in this debate it comes down to whether or not AI will make the countries that lead in it's development and implementation the most powerful. The problem that exists is in how "power" is measured, and had we more time during the debate I would have pointed out that MHoover's claim that any country that could potentially rise to power through AI, that is to say, capitalize on the advantages that AI has to offer, undermines the claim that the leaders in AI will be the most powerful.