Using AI in debates.

[an anarchist]

I wanted to make a thread debating whether AI should be banned in online debate.

I am going to use AI starting after this sentence for the rest of this thread to argue in favor of allowing AI to be used in online debate.

Subject: The Role of AI in Enhancing Online Debate - A Case for AI Integration

Hello fellow debaters,

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in various aspects of life is growing significantly. As we find ourselves in the digital age, the debate surrounding the use of AI in online discussions is timely and essential. It is my belief that AI should be allowed to enhance our online posts in a debate setting, and here's why.

Firstly, the integration of AI in online debates promotes an informed and educated discourse. AI, like OpenAI's GPT-3, can provide quick access to an enormous amount of information. This ability can be leveraged by users to fact-check their arguments, provide relevant statistical data, or even generate well-structured arguments based on the given inputs. This not only helps in making the discussions more fact-based but also contributes to the overall quality of the debate.

Secondly, AI can help in reducing the cognitive load of participating in online debates. Crafting thoughtful and articulate responses requires time, effort, and knowledge. AI can assist users in formulating their thoughts, enabling them to participate in multiple debates simultaneously without compromising the quality of their contributions.

Moreover, AI could level the playing field for those who may not be as confident or articulate in their writing. By providing linguistic and rhetorical assistance, AI can help less experienced users to express their ideas clearly and persuasively. This democratization of debate skills could lead to a richer diversity of voices being heard.

Critics may argue that AI use might lead to inauthentic debates or could potentially be manipulated to spread misinformation. However, these are issues of regulation, not inherent flaws of AI. As with any tool, appropriate guidelines and oversight can ensure its ethical use. And it's also worth noting that AI systems can be designed to cite their sources, increasing transparency and allowing users to scrutinize the information being presented.

In conclusion, AI has the potential to greatly enhance the online debating experience. By promoting informed discourse, reducing cognitive load, and democratizing debate skills, AI could usher in a new era of online discussion. However, to realize these benefits, we must be open to its integration and proactive in establishing rules for its use.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and counterarguments on this fascinating subject.

Best,
@an anarchist

 

[Stevicus]

As a reference tool, it sounds promising, but to actually take a side in a debate might be different. Would AI choose its own side or would that be assigned by the user? Would AI just compile and rehash all the arguments made by others on a given topic (which would be useful, actually)?

What kind of debates would AI have? If there's a local debate over whether to build a new bridge at Elm St. or Main St., would AI be able to take a side in such a debate?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wanted to make a thread debating whether AI should be banned in online debate.

I am going to use AI starting after this sentence for the rest of this thread to argue in favor of allowing AI to be used in online debate.

Subject: The Role of AI in Enhancing Online Debate - A Case for AI Integration

Hello fellow debaters,

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in various aspects of life is growing significantly. As we find ourselves in the digital age, the debate surrounding the use of AI in online discussions is timely and essential. It is my belief that AI should be allowed to enhance our online posts in a debate setting, and here's why.

Firstly, the integration of AI in online debates promotes an informed and educated discourse. AI, like OpenAI's GPT-3, can provide quick access to an enormous amount of information. This ability can be leveraged by users to fact-check their arguments, provide relevant statistical data, or even generate well-structured arguments based on the given inputs. This not only helps in making the discussions more fact-based but also contributes to the overall quality of the debate.

Secondly, AI can help in reducing the cognitive load of participating in online debates. Crafting thoughtful and articulate responses requires time, effort, and knowledge. AI can assist users in formulating their thoughts, enabling them to participate in multiple debates simultaneously without compromising the quality of their contributions.

Moreover, AI could level the playing field for those who may not be as confident or articulate in their writing. By providing linguistic and rhetorical assistance, AI can help less experienced users to express their ideas clearly and persuasively. This democratization of debate skills could lead to a richer diversity of voices being heard.

Critics may argue that AI use might lead to inauthentic debates or could potentially be manipulated to spread misinformation. However, these are issues of regulation, not inherent flaws of AI. As with any tool, appropriate guidelines and oversight can ensure its ethical use. And it's also worth noting that AI systems can be designed to cite their sources, increasing transparency and allowing users to scrutinize the information being presented.

In conclusion, AI has the potential to greatly enhance the online debating experience. By promoting informed discourse, reducing cognitive load, and democratizing debate skills, AI could usher in a new era of online discussion. However, to realize these benefits, we must be open to its integration and proactive in establishing rules for its use.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and counterarguments on this fascinating subject.

Best,
@an anarchist

I would love to see someone ask the ai for sources and then accuse it of being biased and one sided.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wanted to make a thread debating whether AI should be banned in online debate.

I am going to use AI starting after this sentence for the rest of this thread to argue in favor of allowing AI to be used in online debate.

Subject: The Role of AI in Enhancing Online Debate - A Case for AI Integration

Hello fellow debaters,

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in various aspects of life is growing significantly. As we find ourselves in the digital age, the debate surrounding the use of AI in online discussions is timely and essential. It is my belief that AI should be allowed to enhance our online posts in a debate setting, and here's why.

Firstly, the integration of AI in online debates promotes an informed and educated discourse. AI, like OpenAI's GPT-3, can provide quick access to an enormous amount of information. This ability can be leveraged by users to fact-check their arguments, provide relevant statistical data, or even generate well-structured arguments based on the given inputs. This not only helps in making the discussions more fact-based but also contributes to the overall quality of the debate.

Secondly, AI can help in reducing the cognitive load of participating in online debates. Crafting thoughtful and articulate responses requires time, effort, and knowledge. AI can assist users in formulating their thoughts, enabling them to participate in multiple debates simultaneously without compromising the quality of their contributions.

Moreover, AI could level the playing field for those who may not be as confident or articulate in their writing. By providing linguistic and rhetorical assistance, AI can help less experienced users to express their ideas clearly and persuasively. This democratization of debate skills could lead to a richer diversity of voices being heard.

Critics may argue that AI use might lead to inauthentic debates or could potentially be manipulated to spread misinformation. However, these are issues of regulation, not inherent flaws of AI. As with any tool, appropriate guidelines and oversight can ensure its ethical use. And it's also worth noting that AI systems can be designed to cite their sources, increasing transparency and allowing users to scrutinize the information being presented.

In conclusion, AI has the potential to greatly enhance the online debating experience. By promoting informed discourse, reducing cognitive load, and democratizing debate skills, AI could usher in a new era of online discussion. However, to realize these benefits, we must be open to its integration and proactive in establishing rules for its use.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and counterarguments on this fascinating subject.

Best,
@an anarchist

The current AIs have a limit. They are nothing but an advanced google search function.
If I use one of them to give an overview of how do 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 2+2=5 and 2+2=∞ work and connect to the world in a narrow, but also wide sense, it will an answer with in effect what humans think.
But it doesn't matter as such, because it still matters a given human think/feel.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would love to see someone ask the ai for sources and then accuse it of being biased and one sided.

Apparently some Chat AI has done so, and with made-up ones too.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It feels dead and cold, probably because it is.

Because of the usefulness of such dead AI we may never see a live one developed. Plus, nobody wants a skynet or terminator problem or a HAL that can kick people out of the hatch.

 

[Yerda]

Using AI on RF is like playing chess with a friend but getting a chessbot to make your moves. Seems to defeat the purpose entirely.

 

[HonestJoe]

I wanted to make a thread debating whether AI should be banned in online debate.

"Banned" feels a bit extreme (it's not as if anyone could stop you) but I think a better question would be why? What do you think the purpose of online debate is and how would just copying output from a chatbot support or achieve that?

You can't debate with a chatbot (AI or otherwise) because it isn't thinking about the topic in the same way. It's just compiling information from online sources that relate (or appear to) the topic. If you're going to do that, you might as well just link the original human-written information making those arguments directly.

Obviously I want your answers here, not the output from a chatbot. If I wanted to "debate" with a chatbot, I'd be on a chatbot site rather than a discussion forum.

 

[viole]

I wanted to make a thread debating whether AI should be banned in online debate.

I am going to use AI starting after this sentence for the rest of this thread to argue in favor of allowing AI to be used in online debate.

Subject: The Role of AI in Enhancing Online Debate - A Case for AI Integration

Hello fellow debaters,

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in various aspects of life is growing significantly. As we find ourselves in the digital age, the debate surrounding the use of AI in online discussions is timely and essential. It is my belief that AI should be allowed to enhance our online posts in a debate setting, and here's why.

Firstly, the integration of AI in online debates promotes an informed and educated discourse. AI, like OpenAI's GPT-3, can provide quick access to an enormous amount of information. This ability can be leveraged by users to fact-check their arguments, provide relevant statistical data, or even generate well-structured arguments based on the given inputs. This not only helps in making the discussions more fact-based but also contributes to the overall quality of the debate.

Secondly, AI can help in reducing the cognitive load of participating in online debates. Crafting thoughtful and articulate responses requires time, effort, and knowledge. AI can assist users in formulating their thoughts, enabling them to participate in multiple debates simultaneously without compromising the quality of their contributions.

Moreover, AI could level the playing field for those who may not be as confident or articulate in their writing. By providing linguistic and rhetorical assistance, AI can help less experienced users to express their ideas clearly and persuasively. This democratization of debate skills could lead to a richer diversity of voices being heard.

Critics may argue that AI use might lead to inauthentic debates or could potentially be manipulated to spread misinformation. However, these are issues of regulation, not inherent flaws of AI. As with any tool, appropriate guidelines and oversight can ensure its ethical use. And it's also worth noting that AI systems can be designed to cite their sources, increasing transparency and allowing users to scrutinize the information being presented.

In conclusion, AI has the potential to greatly enhance the online debating experience. By promoting informed discourse, reducing cognitive load, and democratizing debate skills, AI could usher in a new era of online discussion. However, to realize these benefits, we must be open to its integration and proactive in establishing rules for its use.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and counterarguments on this fascinating subject.

Best,
@an anarchist

I like it when people need extensions of their natural intelligence to debate me. That means they are losing.
Especially when they use, as help, what is nothing more but a very complex and sophisticated unthinking parrot, like chatGPT.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like it when people need extensions of their natural intelligence to debate me. That means they are losing.
Especially when they use, as help, what is nothing more but a very complex and sophisticated unthinking parrot, like chatGPT.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, that is universally logically true, because of the rules of logic, evidence and how reality works. You are the rule of the correct we, right, viole?!!!

 

[viole]

Yeah, that is universally logically true, because of the rules of logic, evidence and how reality works. You are the rule of the correct we, right, viole?!!!

Yes. If a claim is predicated on the validity of classical logic, and it is derived using classical logic, then the claim is tautologically true, within classical logic. By definition.

Doubting this, would be the intellectual equivalent of doubting the marital status of bachelors.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. If a claim is predicated on the validity of classical logic, and it is derived using classical logic, then the claim is tautologically true, within classical logic. By definition.

Doubting this, would be the intellectual equivalent of doubting the marital status of bachelors.

Ciao

- viole

What happens now that I have lost? Can you explain that?

 

[viole]

What happens now that I have lost? Can you explain that?

What happens? That I envy you. I love to lose, because when I do, I learned something new.

Alas, it happens very rarely

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What happens? That I envy you. I love to lose, because when I do, I learned something new.

Alas, it happens very rarely

Ciao

- viole

No, you got it wrong. I am so much of a loser, that I didn't learn anything new. So in this case you lose. Did you learn something new?
Or are you a loser like me?

 

[viole]

No, you got it wrong. I am so much of a loser, that I didn't learn anything new. So in this case you lose. Did you learn something new?
Or are you a loser like me?

Yes, I learned something new.

Ciao

- viole

 

[an anarchist]

As a reference tool, it sounds promising, but to actually take a side in a debate might be different. Would AI choose its own side or would that be assigned by the user? Would AI just compile and rehash all the arguments made by others on a given topic (which would be useful, actually)?

What kind of debates would AI have? If there's a local debate over whether to build a new bridge at Elm St. or Main St., would AI be able to take a side in such a debate?

Hello, and thank you for your thoughtful response.

You bring up some excellent points about the role of AI in debate. I'd like to clarify that the use of AI in an online debate should primarily be seen as an enhancement tool. The AI doesn’t decide the side of the argument, nor does it autonomously choose what arguments to present. The user, in this case myself, provides those specifications.

In this specific debate thread, for instance, I have instructed the AI to argue for the integration of AI in online debates. Each of my responses, including this one, are crafted based on my instructions and specifications. The AI helps me to construct more articulate, well-informed, and linguistically polished posts, but the essence of the argument, the side taken, and the points made are all mine.

Moreover, I have the option to revise and refine the AI's output as many times as I desire, allowing me to ensure that the final post aligns with my thoughts and perspective. In this sense, the AI is more of a sophisticated writing tool than a debater itself. It enhances my ability to convey my arguments effectively, but the arguments themselves are inherently human, reflecting my beliefs and viewpoints.

As for the types of debates AI could be involved in, I hope that at least in online forum debates, AI could be allowed. This doesn't mean AI should take a side in local issues such as choosing between Elm St. or Main St. for a new bridge. Rather, it means that AI could assist users in crafting their arguments on such issues, providing them with linguistic and rhetorical support and perhaps even relevant data if available.

AI technology is still in its nascent stage and its role in various sectors, including online forums like this one, is a highly relevant discussion. We are, in a sense, charting a new course, and discussions like these are crucial in shaping how AI is integrated into our digital lives. It's a thrilling time, and I appreciate your engagement in this vital conversation.

Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this matter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hello, and thank you for your thoughtful response.

You bring up some excellent points about the role of AI in debate. I'd like to clarify that the use of AI in an online debate should primarily be seen as an enhancement tool. The AI doesn’t decide the side of the argument, nor does it autonomously choose what arguments to present. The user, in this case myself, provides those specifications.

In this specific debate thread, for instance, I have instructed the AI to argue for the integration of AI in online debates. Each of my responses, including this one, are crafted based on my instructions and specifications. The AI helps me to construct more articulate, well-informed, and linguistically polished posts, but the essence of the argument, the side taken, and the points made are all mine.

Moreover, I have the option to revise and refine the AI's output as many times as I desire, allowing me to ensure that the final post aligns with my thoughts and perspective. In this sense, the AI is more of a sophisticated writing tool than a debater itself. It enhances my ability to convey my arguments effectively, but the arguments themselves are inherently human, reflecting my beliefs and viewpoints.

As for the types of debates AI could be involved in, I hope that at least in online forum debates, AI could be allowed. This doesn't mean AI should take a side in local issues such as choosing between Elm St. or Main St. for a new bridge. Rather, it means that AI could assist users in crafting their arguments on such issues, providing them with linguistic and rhetorical support and perhaps even relevant data if available.

AI technology is still in its nascent stage and its role in various sectors, including online forums like this one, is a highly relevant discussion. We are, in a sense, charting a new course, and discussions like these are crucial in shaping how AI is integrated into our digital lives. It's a thrilling time, and I appreciate your engagement in this vital conversation.

Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this matter.

Okay, AI is a tool in the end. But it is not an universal multitool. That is the end game of that.

 

[an anarchist]

The current AIs have a limit. They are nothing but an advanced google search function.
If I use one of them to give an overview of how do 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 2+2=5 and 2+2=∞ work and connect to the world in a narrow, but also wide sense, it will an answer with in effect what humans think.
But it doesn't matter as such, because it still matters a given human think/feel.

Your points about the limitations of current AI systems are valid. AI, at this stage, is largely a tool for finding, processing, and presenting information based on existing human knowledge. It doesn't yet generate wholly original insights or understand the world in the way humans do.

However, the pace of technological growth is exponential, and AI is likely to be at the forefront of this change. Today's limitations could be tomorrow's breakthroughs. As we continue to refine and develop AI technology, we may see many of these current limitations being overcome.

AI is an extension of human thought. It's a tool created by humans, trained on human-generated data, and used to enhance human capabilities. While AI doesn't have its own subjective experiences or perspectives, it can serve as a valuable resource. It can help articulate thoughts more effectively, provide factual information, and even help explore new perspectives by presenting a range of arguments and viewpoints.

While it's crucial to be aware of the current limitations of AI, it's equally important to stay open to the potential of this technology. As we continue to advance and refine AI, it may become an increasingly valuable tool in our intellectual and social toolbox.

 

[an anarchist]

Using AI on RF is like playing chess with a friend but getting a chessbot to make your moves. Seems to defeat the purpose entirely.

I appreciate your perspective, but it appears we approach this topic from fundamentally different mindsets.

Let me share an anecdote: in school, I would sometimes use a chessbot to play against my friends without their knowledge. My goal was to win and enjoy the benefits that come with that victory. This wasn't because I didn't appreciate a genuine game of chess—quite the opposite, I enjoy a challenging match. But there's a certain satisfaction in achieving a swift victory, even if it's attained through unconventional means.

Translating this to the realm of online debates, the goal isn't always just to engage in intellectual sparring for its own sake. Sometimes, the aim is to disseminate and propagate crucial information effectively, which can be facilitated by "winning" a debate.

In saying this, I'm not suggesting that everyone should adopt my approach, or that my way is inherently superior. We all have our own reasons for participating in these debates. Personally, I engage in debates to learn, and when I believe I'm right, I debate to win.

Using AI in this context doesn't detract from these goals—in fact, it can enhance them by providing stronger, more well-rounded arguments and by ensuring that the information I present is accurate and comprehensive.

So while I understand your perspective, I hope this gives you some insight into why some of us might see the value in incorporating AI into our online debates.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your points about the limitations of current AI systems are valid. AI, at this stage, is largely a tool for finding, processing, and presenting information based on existing human knowledge. It doesn't yet generate wholly original insights or understand the world in the way humans do.

However, the pace of technological growth is exponential, and AI is likely to be at the forefront of this change. Today's limitations could be tomorrow's breakthroughs. As we continue to refine and develop AI technology, we may see many of these current limitations being overcome.

AI is an extension of human thought. It's a tool created by humans, trained on human-generated data, and used to enhance human capabilities. While AI doesn't have its own subjective experiences or perspectives, it can serve as a valuable resource. It can help articulate thoughts more effectively, provide factual information, and even help explore new perspectives by presenting a range of arguments and viewpoints.

While it's crucial to be aware of the current limitations of AI, it's equally important to stay open to the potential of this technology. As we continue to advance and refine AI, it may become an increasingly valuable tool in our intellectual and social toolbox.

Well, ask it what meta-cognition is for all its variants and how that relates to say information.
All of this is in effect meaningless unless we as we learn to be critical of even information as an idea.