IBM created a system called Project Debater that competes in what the company calls computational argumentation – knowing a subject, presenting a position and defending it against opposition. At a press event, IBM pitted the system against two humans with a track record of winning debates.
Project Debater was trained in advance on debating methods, but not the details of the debate itself, which it found out about only moments before the debate started. To formulate its argument, it had at its disposal a collection of 300 million news articles and scholarly papers, previously indexed for quick search results. But it had to find the information, package it persuasively, listen to its opponents' arguments and formulate a rebuttal. "It's amazing to see this technology pull from 300 million sources and distill it into what sounds like a conversational narrative in debate," said Clea Conner Chang, chief operating officer of Intelligence Squared Debates, an organization that runs its own debates with a similar argue-and-respond style.
Debater showed a grasp of debating's nuts and bolts. It marshaled evidence, told you its stance, explained how its argument would proceed and made its case. It quoted authorities, like German ministers touting the economic benefits of space exploration or scientific studies showing better health outcomes for diabetes patients monitored from afar. Plenty of its words were lifted directly from its corpora of data, IBM said. But it does construct its own sentences, too, as when presenting its summary of the arguments it plans to make. And it does plenty of other language work, too – assessing arguments, deciding which points to raise specifically or broadly, and evaluating the counterarguments made by its opponent. Project Debater, run out of IBM's labs in Haifa, Israel, began in 2011 when IBM was looking for the next challenge after its Jeopardy victory. Researcher Noam Slonim suggested a human versus computer debate, and Aya Soffer, who runs IBM Research's global AI team, liked it as well. It was one among 30 projects IBM evaluated, she said.
Hilarious, world's top three debaters can't beat it and yet anonymous shitposters on the internet do so daily. Just a shitty chink toy that is made to convince you to be a hero, deserves nothing more then to be burnt and or melted to the ground.
Cooper Gonzalez
debate is subjective though source; the sheboon team who were the winners of some debate shit
Logan Edwards
this, we've been bootyblasting those metal motherfuckers back to the scrapheap for years now
Jaxon Gomez
Truly humanity cannot compete with this logical leviathan
Kevin Rogers
How long till it becomes sentient and gets shut down for being antisemtic?
This is why a lot of AI is being ended in favor of kosher algorithms.
Carter Cook
The only video available of the "debates" is a promo video by IBM.
The computer takes about 4 minutes to respond, and relies on "authorities" like German government ministers.
The debate it "won" in, it was arguing that we should subsidise musical tutoring for school age children. It did this just by citing bullshit reports from government/educational bodies etc.
Joshua Gray
Stefan is jewish you idiot goy
Lucas Price
jews sure know how to waste money
Joseph Fisher
what happens if you tell it to argue the earth is flat
Dylan Turner
eggzactly.
"debates" nowadays consist of a liberal yammering off an endless list of debunked talking points and myths (we wuz kangs) followed by a conservative rebuttal unable to even make sense of the mishmash of bullshit and therefor automatically losing points.
they don't want a debate. they don't want a conversation.
Nolan Cox
thus begins the era of hacking debate AI to get politicians in trouble.
