SoylentNews

IBM Demos an AI System Capable of Debating Humans

posted by mrpg on Friday June 22 2018, @07:00AM   
from the I-disagree dept.

takyon writes:

IBM showed off an AI system called Project Debater at an event in San Francisco:

In its first public demonstration held during an event at IBM's Watson West site in San Francisco, Project Debater was instructed to argue in favor of the proposition: "We should subsidize space exploration." According to a blog penned by IBM Research director Arvind Krishna, here is what happened:

"Project Debater made an opening argument that supported the statement with facts, including the points that space exploration benefits human kind because it can help advance scientific discoveries and it inspires young people to think beyond themselves. Noa Ovadia, the 2016 Israeli national debate champion, opposed the statement, arguing that there are better applications for government subsidies, including subsidies for scientific research here on Earth. After listening to Noa's argument, Project Debater delivered a rebuttal speech, countering with the view that potential technological and economic benefits from space exploration outweigh other government spending."

For an AI system, delivering an opening argument seems fairly straightforward, given that it's essentially a recitation of the most pertinent facts surrounding a topic. But the ability to provide a rebuttal against a skilled debater would seem to demand a good deal more sophistication. For starters, it requires the AI system to pick apart its counterpart's argument and respond to the issues he or she raised, and do so in a logical manner. That could only be done with a deep capability in natural language, plus the ability to understand high-level concepts in order to form relevant counter-arguments.

[...] The demonstration was followed by a second debate between the system and Dan Zafrir, another professional Israeli debater. In this case, they argued for and against the statement: "We should increase the use of telemedicine." No account was provided of how that debated proceeded.

Also at NPR.

---

Original Submission

• No easy way to argue with satanic jews (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @01:21PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22 2018, @01:21PM (#696731)

  Noa Ovadia, the 2016 Israeli national debate champion

  The jew champion could argue with "how can you argue with that?" and other non-arguments.

  The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more – the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them.

  Yet all this had its good side; because the more I came to know the individual leaders, or at least the propagandists, of Social Democracy, my love for my own people increased correspondingly. Considering the Satanic skill which these evil counsellors displayed, how could their unfortunate victims be blamed? Indeed, I found it extremely difficult myself to be a match for the dialectical perfidy of that race. How futile it was to try to win over such people with argument, seeing that their very mouths distorted the truth, disowning the very words they had just used and adopting them again a few moments afterwards to serve their own ends in the argument! No. The more I came to know the Jew, the easier it was to excuse the workers.

  --Chapter II. YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA

  Those are some very insightful words, relevant today as they were relevant in the day they were spoken.

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		-1
  Flamebait=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		-1