Using AI in debates.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand your perspective, but I'd like to suggest a different viewpoint. Using AI in online debates isn't necessarily "outsourcing". Instead, I see it as a tool that enhances my own thoughts and arguments. The AI doesn't replace my role in the debate; rather, it aids me by offering different perspectives, helping to identify potential flaws or strengths in arguments, and assisting in articulating my thoughts more coherently.

That's one way to use it, but nothing would limit someone to only that use.

It would take zero subject knowledge or research for someone to come to a site like this one, click on a random debate, and then copy-paste the OP's argument into ChatGPT and tell it to come up with a refutation.

Moreover, there's a certain enjoyment to be derived from employing AI in this way. It's like discovering a new tool or technology that offers new ways of thinking and communicating. In fact, I've found it quite fun and engaging to use AI in this context, and it's an avenue I've only just begun to explore. I believe the use of AI can add a unique layer to the process of online debating, enhancing rather than diminishing the personal involvement and enjoyment inherent in these discussions.

If you wanted to talk about one specific, narrow usage of AI, then why did you make a thread about AI's use in debates in general?

 

[an anarchist]

That's one way to use it, but nothing would limit someone to only that use.

It would take zero subject knowledge or research for someone to come to a site like this one, click on a random debate, and then copy-paste the OP's argument into ChatGPT and tell it to come up with a refutation.



If you wanted to talk about one specific, narrow usage of AI, then why did you make a thread about AI's use in debates in general?

Indeed, as you have pointed out, there could be a potential for misuse of AI in online debates if individuals simply copy and paste arguments into an AI tool like ChatGPT without fully engaging with the topic themselves. However, let's consider this scenario: an influx of individuals using AI in such a manner could inadvertently lead to an overall increase in the quality of debates. This is because original posters would be required to formulate more rigorous, well-grounded arguments to withstand the scrutiny of AI-generated responses. It's somewhat akin to having a sophisticated research assistant cross-examining every point you make. While this could apply additional pressure, it could also promote better, more substantiated debates.

That said, it's important to note that AI is not a magic wand that can turn a weak argument into a strong one. It serves as an extension of human intelligence, not a replacement for it. If an individual lacks depth of understanding, logical reasoning, or commitment to the topic, the AI's capabilities will be limited by these factors. AI is a tool that enhances and extends our capabilities, but it requires intelligent, logical instructions to operate effectively in a debate setting.

As for your comment about my usage of AI being perceived as narrow, could you please elaborate? I'm interested in understanding your perspective better. Furthermore, how do you foresee the potential misuse of AI in online debate settings? Your insights would be valuable for us to foster a more nuanced understanding of the role and impact of AI in such contexts.

 

[viole]

The usage of AI as a tool in an online debate does not necessarily indicate a winning or losing stance. Instead, it's about maximizing the effectiveness of one's argument. To imply that the use of an AI assistant means someone is "losing" is akin to saying that a scholar using a reference book or a search engine to supplement their argument is on the losing side. These tools, whether traditional or advanced like AI, are used to enhance and inform our discussions, not as a signal of defeat.

if someone uses it for the obvious, then it is a sign of defeat. Or desperation, at least. Especially because those things can be trained to give totally wrong conclusions about the most basic facts of logic. I would not be surprised if I could convince them that 5+5=11.

And then it is clear that any reference to it is totally unreliable. Especially things like math, that require independent thinking, that those machines cannot possibly do. It is actually very easy to lead them to ridiculous conclusions.

Furthermore, intelligence is not binary or simple. The usage of AI does not automatically denote the intellectual capacity of the user. Just as using a calculator doesn't necessarily mean someone is bad at math, using AI doesn't imply that someone is less capable. Instead, it's an indication that they're utilizing the resources available to them to make their argument as robust and well-informed as possible.

i never said that using AI (or AS) is a sign of decreased natural intelligence. I am just saying that, whatever you get from those is unreliable. Especially in logic and math. Therefore, a waste of typing, basically.

As for your metaphor of AI being a "sophisticated unthinking parrot", while it's true that AI doesn't think or understand in the way humans do, it's important to remember that AI is not simply parroting information. It's analyzing vast amounts of data, identifying patterns, and producing responses based on that analysis. This is a far cry from simple repetition. It's a sophisticated process that can provide valuable insights and information, contributing to the quality of our debates.

It depends. Math and logic look totally out of scope, given the unreliability, and the fact that it is easy to mess with its pattern searching mechanism to lead it to ridiculous conclusions.

what we should ask yourself is: instead of using it as a reference, would we accept it as a first citizen debater on this forum? With avatar, and all? Does this forum accepts bots? If not, why not, then? I am sure that most people would accept the author of a google page. Or a book. Or any other reference that we might use for our arguments, to join here. So, I am not sure we can really compare the human way of acquire knowledge with those mindless pattern searchers.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Stevicus]

If you ask it to take a side, it will take one... and pull from all sorts of online sources - reliable or not, verified or not - to back up its position.

Would it choose its own side, or would a human have to tell it what side to take?

 

[viole]

And what tools does one use to predicate that validity? It cannot be classical logic, because classical logic does not have the tools to evaluate evidence nor relelvance.

Out of scope. If a claim is true within a certain logical framework, then we can say that it is true within that logical framework. Tautologically. Because within that framework, the only thing that counts is systematic and correct application of the rules. Semantics, ontology, epistemology, and all that stuff are neither required nor welcome.

whether what a certain formal systems produces is true or not for philosophers and such, is therefore completely irrelevant. So, your question is comparable to: what tools does one use to predicate the validity of the rules of chess?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Stevicus]

what we should ask yourself is: instead of using it as a reference, would we accept it as a first citizen debater on this forum? With avatar, and all? Does this forum accepts bots? If not, why not, then? I am sure that most people would accept the author of a google page. Or a book. Or any other reference that we might use for our arguments, to join here. So, I am not sure we can really compare the human way of acquire knowledge with those mindless pattern searchers.

That's a good question. I guess it relates to the idea of AI simply being reactive and responding to questions or problems put to it, or whether it can actually initiate thought without even being asked or prompted. Would an AI bot be able to interact in some of the more humorous, light-hearted banter, such as "The Random Meaningless Insults to Posters"? Would robot jokes be off the table because it might offend AI?

I'm still not sure if we're just dealing with some kind of digital version of a "parrot," who can mimic human speech but not know what they're saying - or if it's some kind of intelligence capable of initiating unique and original thoughts and/or capable of taking a stance in a given debate.

 

[an anarchist]

what we should ask yourself is: instead of using it as a reference, would we accept it as a first citizen debater on this forum? With avatar, and all? Does this forum accepts bots? If not, why not, then? I am sure that most people would accept the author of a google page. Or a book. Or any other reference that we might use for our arguments, to join here. So, I am not sure we can really compare the human way of acquire knowledge with those mindless pattern searchers.

I understand your points and the distinction you're making. Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that AI should have its own account and participate independently in online debates. Rather, my argument is for the acceptance and encouragement of human debaters using AI as a tool to help enhance their posts in online debates.

The role of AI here is akin to a tool or an assistant, providing support in conducting research, helping identify potential weaknesses in arguments, providing alternative perspectives, and improving clarity and coherence of communication. However, it's important to note that AI doesn't work independently. It's the human user who directs the AI, leveraging its capabilities to augment their own intelligence and critical thinking skills. The human debater remains the primary participant in the debate, with the AI providing assistance but not independently making decisions or contributions.

Therefore, while AI can be a valuable reference and aid, it is not a substitute for human intelligence, judgment, and ethical considerations, all of which are fundamental to meaningful debates.

 

[dybmh]

@ an archist

Out of scope. If a claim is true within a certain logical framework, then we can say that it is true within that logical framework. Tautologically. Because within that framework, the only thing that counts is systematic and correct application of the rules. Semantics, ontology, epistemology, and all that stuff are neither required nor welcome.

whether what a certain formal systems produces is true or not for philosophers and such, is therefore completely irrelevant. So, your question is comparable to: what tools does one use to predicate the validity of the rules of chess?

Ciao

- viole

No, the question is, how do you determine if the claim even belongs in the framework, if the framework doesn't have tools to evaluate relevance?

You need to go outside the framework to determine whether the framework is relevant. There is no way to tell if the claim is predicated without tools to evaluate that.

 

[dybmh]

Math and logic look totally out of scope, given the unreliability

Then you should be able to refute what it says. if you can't, then, it's smarter than you are on that topic and for that answer.

 

[Quagmire]

As a reference tool, it sounds promising

The current AIs have a limit. They are nothing but an advanced google search function.

Yes, and I'm finding that it serves that purpose very well.

Lately I've started using Nova - ChatGPT AI Chatbot in place of Google and I'm impressed with the results.

For instance: I was trying to find a specific passage from the gospel of Matthew, but I only had a couple of vague ideas to go on so Google couldn't help.

The chatbot nailed it. Gave me chapter and verse in a matter of seconds.

So much nicer than having to sort through a bunch of irrelevant links on Google.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

I mean...were I debating you I might refer to books, studies, etc.
These are 'extensions of my natural intelligence'.

I would assume you'd assess my arguments by it's persuasiveness, and the utility and cohesiveness of my supportive evidence, rather than whether I was relying on natural intelligence' alone, right?

I don't see AI being much different. I do worry it will encourage a lot of cookie cutter arguments and argument structures though (including the OP, to be honest).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

if someone uses it for the obvious, then it is a sign of defeat. Or desperation, at least. Especially because those things can be trained to give totally wrong conclusions about the most basic facts of logic. I would not be surprised if I could convince them that 5+5=11.

And then it is clear that any reference to it is totally unreliable. Especially things like math, that require independent thinking, that those machines cannot possibly do. It is actually very easy to lead them to ridiculous conclusions.


i never said that using AI (or AS) is a sign of decreased natural intelligence. I am just saying that, whatever you get from those is unreliable. Especially in logic and math. Therefore, a waste of typing, basically.


It depends. Math and logic look totally out of scope, given the unreliability, and the fact that it is easy to mess with its pattern searching mechanism to lead it to ridiculous conclusions.

what we should ask yourself is: instead of using it as a reference, would we accept it as a first citizen debater on this forum? With avatar, and all? Does this forum accepts bots? If not, why not, then? I am sure that most people would accept the author of a google page. Or a book. Or any other reference that we might use for our arguments, to join here. So, I am not sure we can really compare the human way of acquire knowledge with those mindless pattern searchers.

Ciao

- viole

I think it's worth separating current AI models, and particularly ChatGPT from more general arguments about AI.

However, it's worth noting that Khan Academy has released an AI model (Khanmigo) which can do maths in amore controlled fashion, including interpreting steps taken to resolve equations, and describing likely reasons for mistakes, and clarifications on correct methods.

I wouldn't say maths is 'totally out if scope' even with current AI available, and that is a far cry from where this will be in ten years.

 

[viole]

@ an archist


No, the question is, how do you determine if the claim even belongs in the framework, if the framework doesn't have tools to evaluate relevance?

You need to go outside the framework to determine whether the framework is relevant. There is no way to tell if the claim is predicated without tools to evaluate that.

It is very easy to check. That is what formalist mathematicians do every day. They do not care in the slightest about so called reality, language or anything. Their truths are nothing but the result of syntactic manipulations of symbols according to well defined and fixed rules. The rules of logic. There are results in math that are completely at odds with our reality. Like the Tarski Banach paradox. Even very basic results of math are totally at odds with our reality, especially when they involve infinite quantities. Yet, those results are, within the premises of classical logic and the axioms, true. Formalism (philosophy of mathematics) - Wikipedia

So, it looks like you are confusing logic with nomology. The latter being a proper subset of the former. To make an example, there are no logical barriers against flying pigs, while there are a lot of nomological ones. In fact, a miracle from God might be defined as something that breaks only nomology, but not logic.

but let’s see if we can find a compromise that will stop this comical conversation. I am going to change my claim, in the hope that it will be more appealing to your intuition, language, or whatever, while still being compliant to classical logic. Aren’t I magnanimous?

Here we go. This is my new claim, still under the premise that I do not know any Jew:

P1) I do not know any Jew who believes in God.

are we cool with that?

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is very easy to check. That is what formalist mathematicians do every day. They do not care in the slightest about so called reality, language or anything. Their truths are nothing but the result of syntactic manipulations of symbols according to well defined and fixed rules. The rules of logic. There are results in math that are completely at odds with our reality. Like the Tarski Banach paradox. Even very basic results of math are totally at odds with our reality, especially when they involve infinite quantities. Yet, those results are, within the premises of classical logic and the axioms, true. Formalism (philosophy of mathematics) - Wikipedia

So, it looks like you are confusing logic with nomology. The latter being a proper subset of the former. To make an example, there are no logical barriers against flying pigs, while there are a lot of nomological ones. In fact, a miracle from God might be defined as something that breaks only nomology, but not logic.

but let’s see if we can find a compromise that will stop this comical conversation. I am going to change my claim, in the hope that it will be more appealing to your intuition, language, or whatever, while still being compliant to classical logic. Aren’t I magnanimous?

Here we go. This is my new claim, still under the premise that I do not know any Jew:

P1) I do not know any Jew who believes in God.

are we cool with that?

ciao

- viole

Well, here is the reductio ad absurdum. If you can convey this without posting or otherwise commutating using in effect in part everyday words on an Internet site in reality, I will listen.
But you are contradicting yourself, because you keep engaging other humans in reality for the everyday world, including that there are Jews in the everyday world and this: "... Aren’t I magnanimous?" What does that have to do with formal logic?

So you in effect accept and use the everyday world and deny that it is relevant, but use it as relevant for your posts.
As long as you do this in effect contradiction of using as relevant, something you deny it is relevant, it will not stop.

 

[viole]

Well, here is the reductio ad absurdum. If you can convey this without posting or otherwise commutating using in effect in part everyday words on an Internet site in reality, I will listen.
But you are contradicting yourself, because you keep engaging other humans in reality for the everyday world, including that there are Jews in the everyday world and this: "... Aren’t I magnanimous?" What does that have to do with formal logic?

So you in effect accept and use the everyday world and deny that it is relevant, but use it as relevant for your posts.
As long as you do this in effect contradiction of using as relevant, something you deny it is relevant, it will not stop.

I also play chess, sometimes. So,I wonder why I also eat pizza sometimes, since that has nothing to do with chess.

IOW: no idea what your point is. I think you are still conflating classical logic with ontology. In other words, you are committing a category error.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I also play chess, sometimes. So,I wonder why I also eat pizza sometimes, since that has nothing to do with chess.

IOW: no idea what your point is. I think you are still conflating classical logic with ontology. In other words, you are committing a category error.

Ciao

- viole

No, because they are all parts of reality. You want a model, where the parts are not connected, but they are, because you are not only in the logical reality. You are in the reality of metaphysics/ontology, logic, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics and you are using them all in your posts.
You are in effect claiming that reality are parts that are not connected, yet you use all the parts and you do so in reality.

 

[exchemist]

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

Res-is-tance is use-less; exter-mi-nate.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Res-si-tance is use-less; exter-mi-nate.

Do you want the biological joke of replication of the fittest code for replication as for a physical and chemical process?
If self-replicating machines with AI ever become a thing,, they are for cause and effect in effect biological, but different than wetware.

I can be objective and realistic about how the universe works.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Has anyone asked some particular AI - what are the existential threats as to the human species, and what can we do about such? And do we expect an honest reply?

 

[wellwisher]

I am looking forward to when fake news starts using AI, since this will tell us if AI is honest or can be gamed.

For example, say we program AI with all the news archives over the past 10 years, and then we compare that day to day account from the past to the final truth that appears; good 20/20 hindsight. Would the AI disqualify a large number of media people and politicians or will it be told to reinforce these same media personalities?

I like the idea of using AI to rate the media personalities and organizations based on all their past comments; audio and visual, in light of the factual 20/20 hindsight of the present. The AI will then publish this news reliability data so people can see who are the best sources of news and who are the best sources of fake news, so we do not have to guess. Lawyers can use such data to ambulance chase. The lie comes out of the starting blocks first and fast, but truth slowly catches up. Damage is done before the truth stops the play. AI can be used to create some long term accountability.

The over/under bet in terms of global warning and climate change; polar ice should be gone by now, has had the consensus of science always betting the over; bet on exaggerated/political fears. Will AI point out this casino science betting trend, or will it be asked to reinforce the fear tactic that is behind the exaggerations; prestige of the consensus?

If AI is as good as it is being presented, Liberalism may be in trouble, since it favor emotional thinking and sentiment over reason. AI is not good at nebulous feelings. It may be hard to manipulate the emotions of a logic machine unless you game it with faulty foundation premises, for selective data collective to feed prescribed logic paths.

If you asked AI if allowing criminals to escape justice will bring down crime, like Liberalism seems to believe based on examples in Democrat run cities, the AI logic cannot be that dumb unless tampered with. This will be an easy one to see.

Some of the main fears of AI are from those who cheat under the radar, since an honest and objective use of AI could expose all that. How about using AI in a legal defense. One can buffer yourself by blaming the AI for your crimes, since it had very convincing arguments to wire tap or follow.