LIVE DEBATE – IBM Project Debater

LIVE DEBATE – IBM Project Debater

Show Video

And. Now. Please welcome director, of IBM Research Dario, Gill. Good. Afternoon. This. Past June a few, blocks from where I'm standing right now, IBM. Unveiled Project, debater an. AI system that. Is capable of engaging, with humans in a live debate. It. Was widely reported at the time that. The system, really, held its own, against. Two Israeli, debate champions. But. For us it. Really is not about. Winning or losing but really. About the ability, to create AI that, can master the infinitely, complex. And rich, world of human, language I like. Games, language. Can, really tell us more about human, thought and expression, and is. This world that is most interesting to us at IBM, Research we. Believe there's. Great potential, in, having artificial, intelligence, that, can understand, us, the. More transparent and, explainable. That we can make AI the, more we can trust it and the. More we can trust it the, more we can rely on it to help us make better decisions. There. Is hope behind. The technology that, you're gonna see demonstrated, today, let. Me briefly put into perspective what. You're about to see, alive. Ian research we have a long, history of creating. Technology, and capability, that, can amplify and complement, human, cognition. Providing. More information and. More context, for us to, help us make better decisions, and project. Debater is no exception, we. Envision a future of, the technology, well beyond the podium. Helping. People to reason to. Build well inform, arguments, and to. Make better, decisions. Today. It, will take on a human, debater who holds the record for the most competition, victories. Since. June, our team, of scientists, have been improving the core AI technology, behind. The system to. Prepare for this formidable, challenge. Nothing. That you're about to see is pre-recorded. Or pre-scripted. Except. The very first sentence, that the system will use to. Read the human debater I should. Also point out the, team of computer scientists, that will be with, us on stage who. Were part of the team that created, the system and who, who is here to keep, an eye behind. The scenes of what is happening. Today's. Topic, was, chosen from a curated, list it's. Important, to note that Project, debater has, never been trained to, know that predict debater was never trained on this topic. You. May hear project debater repeat. Itself, unnecessarily. Or make mistakes, this. Is because it's an AI system and, AI. Systems, are far from perfect, before. I turn it over to our hosts I want, to give a shout out to the, debate club from the Daughtery Valley High School in San Ramon as, well as a team from the Bay Area urban. Debate league who. Is headed to the National Finals. And one. Last reminder please, silence your phones and please. No flash photography. Now. Without further delay let. Me introduce the host for the evening four-time. Emmy, winner from intelligent square John, Donvan. Thank. You Dario, so, this really is a nice intersection. Criss crossing right at the word intelligence, your project. Debater here, is an experiment. In artificial. Intelligence and, I host. A debate program with. Intelligence. In its name intelligence.

Squared Us and, since. 2006. We, have put on across. The nation close. To a hundred and seventy, debates on a wide, range of topics from, policy. To foreign, policy to politics, to culture to sports, to. Food to what we eat to our health care systems basically, everything. Under, the Sun our goal in doing this has always been to raise the level of public discourse that. Was the vision of our founders Robert Rosencrantz, and Alexandra Monroe they are here in the house this evening I would love to give them a round of applause and recognition, for this. And. We do this not. Only by. Encouraging, and insisting. On civility, but also, frankly. By making a contest, out of the challenge of having, to present an argument intelligently. And also. Persuasively. Here's a quick look at what I'm talking about. We, really aim to raise the level of public discourse by, taking on tough but also nuanced, subjects, in which there's valid arguments, on both sides to, bring people to the stage who, argue, with passion, truthfulness. With respect for one another. I've, seen pictures the. Brain scans of people with CTE and looks like someone, drove a truck across their brain we actually do agree on a lot of foundation, within which we have civilized of it we actually share as. A nation, a civic religion. You. And your fellow debaters, all heard things from your opponents that you respect to take seriously, demonstrating. That is the essence of what we want to do here so the way that you conducted, this honors, us. That. Was unquestionably. An applause line right. There so. And. Let me let me just interject, that all, of our programs turn into podcasts, and and also television, programs that, travel far and wide but at the moment I'm thinking with the podcast in mind there will be an audience that. Will hear this, debate far. And wide and forever, and for, that reason I want to encourage you to bring energy to the room throughout, the evening bye bye, bye applauding, when, you hear points you like and when I introduce the debaters you know that we, think we might be making history today so someday you, can tell your grandchildren who's, listening to this podcast you hear that clapping, yeah, I was Buzzle my hands doing, that so please. Feel free to applaud when you like a point it's at intelligence, squared we always say we, like, that kind of positive reinforcement.

We're Just against the booing and hissing parts, or no booing and hissing if. You if you don't like something that you hear you might want, to just let loose with perhaps a. Sardonic. Chuckle or something that most like that but let's keep it positive but let's really keep it energetic. In fact we have already. Once debated, the issue of artificial, intelligence itself. That. Resolution was don't trust, the promise of artificial. Intelligence I. Felt. A little pulse of resentment, from behind me did you feel, that we're. Gonna be doing again this spring around the matter of self-driving, cars but this this truly this. Truly is a first for us the first time that an artificial intelligence, namely, project, debater will be on our stage arguing. With a human. Being, and made the best debater win and as we like to say at every debate may, civil discourse, win as well, so let's get started let's first, meet. And applaud, our debaters first arguing. For the resolution tonight will be IBM. Project debater. And. Arguing. Against, representing, the rest of us please welcome to the stage, Harish Natarajan he is a graduate of the University, of Oxford and the University, of Cambridge and a grand finalist, at the 2016. World, debating, championships, also, the, 2012. European debating. Champion please come to the stage Hari. Congratulations. Thank you. So. We are gonna be hosting a single debate this evening around, a single resolution the format's going to go like this we, go in three rounds, first. We will have each, participant. Offering. A four minute introductory, argument, on the topic after. That we go to a second, round that's a four minute rebuttal round, each debater, rebuts, the arguments, made finally. We move on to Round three and that's closing round in which they make a two-minute, closing statement, sort, of a summary now, we need. You not only to applaud and keep the energy up but to participate, as the judges of this debate we, are going to ask you to, vote before, and after. The arguments, using, your mobile phone to, tell us where, you stand on this position and to tell us whether you were persuaded, or not by one side or the other so. You're, gonna be asked first your position on the resolution, after the debate you'll be asked if your position changed we're also gonna put a second question in there we just want to know in general who. You feel better enriched. Your knowledge, of this topic, then. We will share the results of the voting after. We have a panel, discussion with Harish, and two of the IBM scientists, who are behind this fascinating, research they're gonna explain in even more detail what we just saw happen and how, it happened so, to, reveal now the resolution. Of the evening is this we, should. Subsidize. Preschool. We, should, subsidize. Preschool. That's, gonna be the resolution, and I just want to say in terms of what we, mean. By that the way that we're framing it we are not talking about preschool in any particular locale, no, particular, city or state we, are also. Not. Referring. To any particular program. That exists, or any particular proposal. Out there and finally. We are not talking about. Targeting. Or. Choosing. Preschool programs for any particular, group. Of students in any particular, place so. Now, in knowing, now that that is our resolution, we should subsidize preschool. I want, to ask you please to take out your smartphones, and type. In the URL shown, on the screen it's.

Also Listed in your program and you. Can begin, to, vote and we're going to give you a couple, of minutes to do that we're. Gonna lock it out in probably, about, two minutes which I think crowd like this will be able to handle that so, let's, get started I'm gonna go to my lectern and, our. First debater in round. One, will. Be project. Debater. A four. Minute introduction, from project evader again, and, and and and project debater actually. Has a gender she. Will. Be arguing. She. Will be arguing, for the resolution we. Should subsidize, preschool. Ladies. And gentlemen, here, we go. There. Are two issues I will elaborate, on now I would start by explaining why preschool, is an important, investment I will, also say a few words about poverty, and anybody. Discussing, some other issues that show the positive aspects. Of preschools, regarding. Investment, nature-based, preschools, are powerful, interpretive, programs as, well as lucrative, business decisions. Demonstrated. That high quality preschool, is one of the best investments, of public dollars resulting. In children who fare better on tests, and have more successful, lives than those without the same access. Secondly. A few, words about poverty, while. I cannot experience, poverty, directly, and have no complaints, concerning, my own standards, of living I still, have the following to share regarding. Poverty, research, clearly, shows that a good preschool can help kids overcome, the disadvantages. Often associated, with poverty the, OECD, has recommended, that government, subsidize pre-primary. Education to, boost performance in, poorer areas a, statistical. Summary of studies from 1960. And 2013. By the National, Institute, for early education research found. That high quality preschool can, create, long term academic. And social, benefits, for individuals, and society, far, exceeding, costs, the, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports. That universal, full-day, preschool creates, significant. Economic savings in health care as well as decreased, crime welfare. Dependence, and child abuse, former. Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam said, in 1973. That preschool is the greatest single aid in removing or modifying the. Inequalities, of background, environment, family. Income or family nationality. Now. To an additional, final, issue a study. By the melbourne institute of applied economic and, social research, shows, that attendance, at preschool, has a significant. Positive impact, on later NAPLAN, outcomes, particularly in the domains of numeracy, reading, and spelling the, results of a new study of over 1,000, identical, and fraternal twins. Published, in Psychological Science a, journal, of the Association. For psychological science. Confirm. That preschool programs. Good idea here, is a study from New Jersey that is worth noting in New, Jersey the, follow-up to the Abbott preschool, program, study continues to find that high quality preschool programs. Increase achievement, in language arts and literacy math, and science, through 4th and 5th grade I hope. I relayed the message that, we should subsidize preschools. You, will possibly, hear my opponent talk today about different priorities. And subsidies, he, might say that the subsidies, are needed, but not for preschools, I would, like to ask you mr. Natarajan, if you agree in principle why, don't we examine, the evidence and the data and decide accordingly, thank. You for listening. Ladies. Gentlemen Project debater. And I. Want to point this out both debaters, were. Given 15, minutes to prepare for this debate, in, other words Irish. It was only 15 minutes ago that you were told the topic of this debate so that's one of the that's.

Your Kind of wizardry as well, and you're very good at it so ladies and gentlemen please welcome our. Debater. Arguing, against the resolution we should subsidize preschool. Irish, najin. Well. Thank you very much everybody, it's a pleasure to be here for this historic event, and it certainly was a pleasure to listen to, project debater there, was a lot of information, in, that speech and, lots of facts and lots of figures the, problem, though is the reality of subsidizing. Preschools. Is one, which, does not deal, with the underlying problems. In society it is, one which often makes those worse and in, the end is very little more than a politically. Motivated giveaway. To members of the middle class let. Me start by examining the, main claim from, Project debater, I think. Project debaters suggest something very intuitive, that if we believe preschools. Are good in principle, surely. It is worth for, giving money to subsidize those, but. I don't think that is ever enough, of a justification for subsidies, why. Is that the case because. There are multiple things which are good for society that. Could be in countries like the United, States increased, investment, in health, care which would often also have returns, for, education. Which the osed, would also note, is probably. Very beneficial to, deal with poverty it, will be improving, tertiary, education. To allow people more access to social mobility or, given, the reality, of underfunded. Schools trying, to improve secondary, education, my. Point here is not that all of those things are necessarily, better than preschools. But. Simply, that it cannot be alone, a sufficient. Argument for project debated, to claim that there are some benefits the, question, is more subtle than that what. Is the question then I think. The criterion, of whether or not we should then distribute. Subsidy should be asked, based. On two claims the, first is is this, under, provided, and under consumed, in the status quo I'll talk, more about that in a moment and second. Does it actually help those individuals who, are the most harmed by society. Why, exactly doesn't. Preschool. Or subsidization. Of preschool, do that I want, to make two claims under this the, first is many. Middle-class, parents, and many people, from upper incomes, already. Send their children to preschool, this, is because they value many of the things which project, debatin noted but. Why is that a problem because. Subsidization, cost, an awful lot of money and that is money which is paid giving people particularly. Members of the middle class that above money, to do things which they would do otherwise, why. Is that so damaging, given. The realities, of opportunity. Costs, here the, problem, is that, you are giving, much you're taking money from all taxpayers, to, help those individuals within a society who are already, often. The best off and I don't think that is principally, justified. As a way of state, distributing. Its resources, but. The second thing I want to claim is that even when you substitute either. When you subsidize, preschools. It doesn't. Mean that all individuals, go and this, I think was the fallacy, from what we heard from Project, debater yes. You could make it slightly more accessible. For individuals. To attend preschool that, doesn't mean those individuals, who are as poor as Project debater seems, to want it as it aims to care about people are. Going to be those who have the ability to send their child to preschool, they'll still be individuals. Who'll be priced out because, of the realities, of the, market and these individuals, now face not just one exclusion, but a double exclusion, their, tax money money. Which could be used to otherwise help them and their children in myriad other ways is no, longer being is no longer going to them and they, are not able to gain from the benefits of it in, the end when it comes to the question of subsidization. There is always going to be trade-offs and that needs to be accepted, given. The reality of those trade-offs the, question is who do you help and the people you don't help are those individuals, who have a poorest, you give unfair. Exaggerated. Gains to those individuals, in the middle class and that is why at, the end of this debate we don't think that you should subsidize, preschools.

Thank. You Herr Schmidt Rajan. So. We before we move on to the rebuttal round I just want to summarize some of what we've heard we have heard Project debater make the argument, in support of the resolution we, should subsidize preschools. By, saying that this is not just a matter of finance but it's also a moral and political issue, it has, a relates. To a duty to support some of the most vulnerable, people in society that. Preschool itself. Subsidized. Or not has a broader impact on the lives of individual, citizens she. Cited research. That says that investment. In preschool, results. Without doubt in. Maximally. Successful, lives, it increases, income. And, it also helps, to overcome several, of the disadvantages. Of poverty. Again. It there's better health outcomes, there are actually, decreases, in crime and she, cites a number of studies to to. Back this up, basically. Also, she anticipated, her. Opponent, probably, making the argument, that. Subsidies. Would serve one, group at the expense, of another, she also threw in a few jokes along the way and was. Surprisingly. Charming. And human sounding I would say but, also charming. And human sounding was the human on this day. Harish not Rajan he argued against the resolution that, we should subsidize preschools. He, said that basically project. Debaters argument, does not deal, really, in addressing. The underlying problems. That she was arguing that preschool claims, to solve that too, often. Preschool. Functions, as a politically. Of subsidies, for preschool function. As a politically, motivated giveaway. To the middle class that, there are other programs out, there that deserve support that does not mean that preschool, does not but the idea of putting preschool, ahead, of the line for, government. Resources and, taxpayer. Dollars. Is a, questionable, act in fact speaking, of question he said the whole question is much more subtle than. Project, debater, was stating, he questions, whether in, fact preschool. Might, actually help. Those who, it is most trying to might, actually harm those at his most trying to hurt middle, class families, already, are taking advantage of preschool, they're paying it for from themselves so they would be paying for it or other already, but now they. Would be these. Families would be gaining subsidies, to. Do things that they would be doing otherwise and this, obviously. Is diminishes. Resources, available, to everyone so, those. Are roughly. The arguments, we're going to give, each, of the debaters, a few more minutes to, prepare. For. Their rebuttal round but, before. We do I just wanted to bring to, this stage one. Of the designers, of of. Project. Debater no I'm Sloan iam who is.

How. Do well, you're out of Tel Aviv not at Haifa Israel but welcome, to the stage I just wanted to take one minute since we're in this phase where, over. There and here, there's, a process, going on through artificial, intelligence, trying to figure, out what to say next, what is that involved, so I will, try to explain briefly what is happening, under the hood so thank, you John as you. Say that we just heard two interesting, opening. Speeches by, Project. Debater and Harish and. Project. Debater as we speak is now trying to prepare. The rebuttal, speech and as, we know in a debate the rebuttal is the most challenging, part, so. The system is starting by using Watson, speech recognition, capabilities. In order to understand, the, words that Harish, was using and then, it tries to Cygnet these words into meaningful. Sentences. And, the. Next step is really to capture, the gist of the speech by Harish okay, so the system is, basically using, a collection, of artificial, intelligence. Engines. In, order to first, of all somehow anticipate. What Harish will state and, then determine. Whether indeed, he was stating, these arguments. Explicitly. Or implicitly. And, then, generate, some kind of a meaningful rebuttal, to that it sounds like an amazing challenge and you'll be back after, the third round to with your colleagues to discuss this in more detail but I just wanted to get a look ahead so thanks very much No. Thank you. So. Now we move on to round two rebuttals. And again. Each side will have four minutes to respond, to the opponent's arguments, first with, her rebuttal, Project debater arguing, for the resolution we should subsidize. Preschool. Thank. You again for. Starters, I sometimes listen, to opponents in wonder what. Do they want would, they prefer poor people on their doorsteps, begging, for money would. They live well with poor people without heating and running water giving. Opportunities, to the less fortunate should, be a moral obligation of, any human being and it is a key role for the state to, be clear we should find the funding for preschools, and not rely on luck, or market forces this. Issue is too important, to not have a safety net next. I think that Harish Natarajan, raised the following, issue there. Are more important, things than preschools, to spend money on the. State budget is a big one and there is room in it to subsidize, preschools, and invest in other fields therefore. The idea that there are more important, things to spend on is irrelevant because, the different subsidies, are not mutually exclusive. I believe. The following example, from a related field will explain what I'm trying to say about subsidy, policies research. Shows that childcare, subsidies. To low-income parents, enable, those parents, to enter and remain in the workforce to. Be clear, my intention, is not to leave a suitcase full of money for everyone to grab will we. Are talking about a limited targeted, and helpful, mechanism, as in this example. Next. I will discuss three issues which explain, why we should subsidize preschools. I will, demonstrate that, preschool education, improves, children's development, I will, also discuss issues related to the claim that attending, preschool helps, students, succeed and finally. I will raise points, associated, with how preschool, can prevent future crime about children. Preschool. Is a very important, and an essential step in a child's, life research. Indicates that access, to quality preschool, can provide a boost for children that will influence their success, for the rest of their lives, senior, leaders at st. Joseph's RC Primary School, say that nursery will help give children the bed start to their education, there. Is clear evidence that high-quality nurseries. Led by Graduate nursery teachers, are among, the most decisive ways to prevent children particularly. Poor boys from, falling behind. Next. Students. A quality, of preschool education, is essential for laying the foundations for successful. Learning including. Transition, to full-time school and future, school success, in December. 2015. Researchers, at Duke University concluded. That investing, in preschool, helps both students, and educators, long term they, found that students who enroll in preschool, education are 39. Percent, less likely to be placed in special, education programs. As third graders, of the, 1010.

Registered, Voters surveyed. 61%. Consider a high quality, preschool experience. Very, important, to a student's, later success, and 22. Percent said, it is somewhat important. Lastly. Crime, preschool. Is an effective, tool for keeping kids in school and out of jail while, reducing, the amount of crime in our neighborhoods, it is, an effective crime prevention strategy. A substantial. Body of research shows that high quality preschool education. Is key in preparing, children to succeed in school and career training and helps, reduce the enormous financial, costs of remedial work delinquency. And crime, studies. Have shown that quality, preschool, leads to better academic, performance throughout. Life higher, earning, and less criminal activity, they, show that high quality preschool, boosts, high school graduation. Rates and children, who do not attend, high quality, preschool are, far, more likely to commit violent, crimes, to. Recap this rebuttal, speech I argue, that preschool, education, improves, children's development. That, attending, preschool helps, students succeed and lastly. That preschool can prevent future, crime let. Me wrap up this speech in a way that I hope you can relate to advocating. Welfare, is like offering a hand to someone who fell it's, basic, human decency, therefore. I think the motion should stand we. Should subsidize preschools. That, concludes, my speech thanks. For listening. And now. The round to rebuttal, from harshness Rajan, who is arguing, again against the resolution we, should subsidize preschool. So. I want to start by noting, or project, debater and I, agree, on we. Agree that, poverty is, terrible, it, is terrible, when individuals, do not have running water it is terrible, when they struggle to meet ends meet to make ends meet and they are struggling to feed their family it, is terrible, when they cannot get health care to cover their child to even provide them the basics, they need in life that. Is all terrible. And those, are all things we need to address and none. Of those are addressed, just, because you, are going to subsidize. Preschool. Why. Is that the case project. Debater raises. An interesting claim, when. She notes that maybe. The state has the budget to do all the good things maybe, the state has the budget to provide healthcare maybe, it has the budget to provide welfare payments, maybe it has the budget to provide running, water as well, as preschool I would. Love to live in that world but, I don't think that is the world we live in I think, we live in a world where, there are real constraints. On what governments, can spend, money on and even, if those are not real those, are nonetheless political. Where, you have people constantly. Talking about the size of government debt, and deficits. And who will be opposed to spending more and more money why. Does that matter because. In the real world both, in terms of the practicalities, of the amount of different, good programs, we have and would like to spend money on and in. The real world were on a political level you cannot always, spend more and more money just because something is good we, do need to make choices, and why. Then, is preschool. The bad choice to, start spending money, on now. Project, debater had a lot of evidence all, of which was saying that preschool leads to other good outcomes now, I would first want to note is I don't think that's comparative, with the other potential.

Projects We could put in place but let's ignore them were argument, for a moment why. Else do I not think those arguments were particularly, dancing I don't. Think it's particularly convincing, because I'm not sure that subsidies, even. Help those individuals. That the. Project debated thinks that we should be helping note. Time, and time again project, debater said, high-quality. Preschools, can lead to huge improvements. On individuals, lives, maybe. But, I'm not sure if you massively, increase, the number of people going to preschool they, are all going to be the ones going to the high quality, preschools, I don't, think that just because you subsidize, it those individuals, who are the poorest, are those individuals, are going to be able to still whose parents, are still gonna be able to spend the money and the, time necessary, to give their child a chance, at preschool. Project, debatin notes that maybe high-quality. Preschools, will reduce crime maybe. But, so would other measures in terms of crime prevention so. Would for and that again, presupposes. That these are high, quality and, the subsidy, alone allows people to go and this. Is the core point I want to make bearing. In mind that, this does create, it is a huge subsidy for, the middle class that. Realistic. Budget constraints, we have means, the money can be spent better, elsewhere, but. The final thing I want to note is maybe. You believe all of this empirical, evidence about the value of preschool. I would, note that that is probably at least somewhat, flawed because. What it actually picks up is that it's those individuals, who are middle-class who, often go send their children to preschool, right now and they have plenty of advantages so I'm not even sure preschools. Decisive, one but, here's a reason why for many students, it may not even be good but, from an early age either, that, preschool doesn't. Teach a child anything, was, pushing, that child to learn in a competitive, environment at, the age of three or four when. You're learning that you are at your depth at other child is potentially, better than you when you realize, you aren't necessarily as talented, as someone else but huge psychological damage. For many children may, not even may. Mean the preschool, is actively, harmful at, the end even if you believe that preschool is good it isn't, the way and where we should spend the money particularly. Given that's a subsidy, to the middle class I'm very happy to oppose. Thank. You Harris. So. We, are about, to move on to the, closing round those will be two-minute closing statements, by each of the two debaters but before, they do and in order to give them a few, moments to prepare I just, want to return briefly, to the subject of something. Close to my heart and that's the mission of intelligence, squared us. I've, moderated. Of a hundred and seventy debates all, but 22 of them and, I've. I'm a journalist, by profession. But, we live in a time when journalism is under challenge and also, when. The.

Discourse. Among. Citizens is. Not. At its best, let's say and, what. We the. Reason I'm so, pleased to be part of intelligence squared is what its mission. Embraces. Is the notion that argument. Is not a bad thing argument. Is a good thing when. Argument, is done well, and by, done, well what we mean is to do it in a setting that is respectful. That. Is respectful, of individuals. Respectful. Of the idea that there may well be a good a good, argument on the other side that, needs to be listened to. Respectful. Of things like facts and, logic and reason and science, it, really is our mission to bring this to the forefront and we've, we, have held. Debates, in in, this community in the past we've, done them in New York in Los Angeles and. Chicago. And. In, Brussels, and, in Cambridge Massachusetts. And, what. What, is astounding, is that we. We find ourselves going into places where. We. May encounter people. Sitting in our audience who. Without. Even really wanting to realize in the course of a debate that they are they are in a bubble that they have never really heard an argument, put, by the other side before in such, a way that they. Take, it in and they weigh it and they they consider it and they judge it sometimes, more favorably, than they might have thought of otherwise because here's the secret thing, about a debate by its nature you're going to hear two arguments, you're going to hear opposing, arguments, and you're going to hear them put forward in a respectful, way and that's. The thing that we're doing and. At, the end of every debate I go. Out into the lobby and kind. Of hang out with the people. Who have just left the debate and we have a lot of people come to all of our debates but we also have at most cases, a lot of newcomers particularly, for some reason in Manhattan, it's kind of a date it's kind of a date night. Maybe. People want to sort of show off, their. Intellect by bringing a date to a debate, but. What I find happens, is that it works, the. Energy. In the lobby when people spill. Out is just so, amazing. They're, just buzzing and they're debating with each other and they're excited, and they're they're. Really lit up by it by this experience, and sometimes, I think the experience that they've had is that, they actually changed, their minds, and didn't. Expect to and maybe there's something sort. Of liberating, about that experience, particularly, in. The time that we're living in so I. I. Just want to say that if you if you have the chance to, follow. Us through. Any any of the channels in which we're putting putting. Our our, story and our debates out there please, do so and we do keep it civil they're almost, always there was okay. There was one time we go is it debate of course about Israel and things. Got heated and there were two debaters who were. There. Said to each other and that, was the one time that I I stood, up and I, walked to the head of the stage and I raised my arms in, my mind a little bit like Moses parting the Red Sea and and. I. Asked them come on pull it back and they did and then they went on to have a really, good evening, but they're very exciting, and they're very thrilling, and I. Think when. Dario Gill got up here and said that where they're thinking of in terms of. Artificial. Intelligence that the base is to help us think better and to.

Help Us with critical reasoning, we, get that because we're in the, same mission essentially, so, I, hope. That didn't sound like a commercial because I actually believe in is really our passion and we're delighted to be here but it's time to move on to round 3 and round 3 our closing, statements by each debater, in turn and they. Will begin. Once, again closing. In support. Of the art of the resolution, we should subsidize preschool, he again his project debater. Thanks. For this final opportunity to speak out in this debate and thanks, Harish natarajan one. Might say that this conversation, can serve no purpose anymore, but. I feel differently, allow. Me to start with a brief rebuttal among. Other things I think mr., Nuttall Rajan suggested, that preschools, should not be subsidized because, this will reduce their quality, I would, like to offer a different view I disagree. With my opponent, subsidy. One of many reasons is that subsidizing. Attracts more skilled and qualified people to the field improving. The quality of preschools, for all, here. Is a final summary of my arguments, today my, opponent, claimed that preschools, are harmful. I believe. My arguments, suggested, that the benefits, outweigh, the potential disadvantages. I touched. Upon three, issues children. Students, and crime. Specifically. I noted, that preschool education, improves, children's development. In, addition I suggested. That attending preschool helps. Students, succeed and a, final point to consider is that preschool can prevent future crime when. This debate just started I said that we will talk about financial, issues we, did and I am convinced, that in my speeches, I supplied enough data to justify, support, for preschools, at the, end of the day the benefits, welfare provides, outweigh, the disadvantages. Welfare. Helps the most important, segments, in society, the underprivileged, the weak the children, if we, want to have a better society then we must invest, in those who are less fortunate, finally. In the words of British politician, and writer Benjamin. Disraeli power. Has only one duty to secure the social welfare of the people we, should subsidize preschools. Thanks. For your attention. And the. Last word going to here'sh arguing. In his closing statement against. The resolution. So. I think we disagree on. Far. Less than it may seem because. We agree that the people we should care about are, the, underprivileged. The children. Those, individuals, who are weak that, is what Project debater said. Herself. But. The problem, is not, that preschool is necessarily, harmful i concede.

In The vast majority of cases it is much better for an individual, to go to preschool than. Not but. It is the reality that. What this policy, is is a huge. Huge, subsidy. Primarily. To, the middle class and not to. Those individuals. Who are the most vulnerable with, the most underprivileged, and the most disadvantaged. Why. Is that the case it, is, first the case because what we said from the start is you, cannot, fund everything, I think, this is simply empirically. True and you, have to make choices and you have to make trade-offs, the. Problem, with preschool, in that, context, is twofold, the. First is that a lot of our money goes to, individuals, who would have sent their child to preschool, anyway, those, individuals, from the middle class all of those benefits, exist, on either side, of the world, but. For those individuals. Who are more, vulnerable this. Is first billions, and billions, of, dollars which. Is probably not going to them and largely, gonna individuals. In the middle class and that's, where the trade are for better help bad, worse or the trader for individuals, to have running water one. Of the problems, project debate are identified. With, people who are poor but, that is a real trader for those people but, second, often, those are the parents who still even. When there are subsidies will, struggle to send their child to. Good, quality preschools. The, stro struggle, to send their child to good quality preschools because they don't even have the money for, what is left, they'll, struggle to send their child to preschools that they don't value the, amount of effort and time they have to put into it they'll struggle to send their children to preschools. Or when they do it, probably will be the worst preschools, which exists and yes, quality, across the board may not fall but in some cases it will and those poor individuals, will probably be stucked in those at, the end of this debate I don't, think the project debater has, helped, those individuals, she, identifies, as the most important, but in reality has. Hit them, thank. You and that concludes round three and the, argument, phase of this debate. So. We're. On our way to making history here, we. Would like to ask you now to complete that process by using your, phones again. Those. Of you who are not alive tweeting, every moment take out your phone and, choose. Your, position, where, you stand now that you've heard the arguments from both sides. And, please pay attention to the second question, who, better enriched your knowledge, of this, topic, and. While. We, are getting the vote going I think we'd like to have a little chat so, I want to and. Harish. I'd like you to join us so we're gonna we're gonna move the furniture a little bit and we're. Gonna invite to the stage in, I, think. Right now in fact here comes the furniture I, want, to invite to the stage two, of the two. Of the scientists, who have.

Been Working for. Literally. Years at. Creating. Into artificial intelligence that you just saw so why don't you come up to the stage. You've. Already met. Speculation. You. Have already met no I'm Sonia and norm. Is the principal investigator of Project, debater and also, ronita Han of the worldwide manager, in harsh inna but I haven't, officially. Shaken, your hand on the stage let's, do that so. The. First person I want to go to actually on this is harsh this is the variance, of. Fighting. With this thing. Rhetorically. Well. What really struck, me is the potential, value for project debater when. Synthesized. With a human, being and that, the amount of knowledge which is able to grasp and more. Than that obviously, you can get some knowledge just by searching for it but able, to contextualize it and place it as this. Information tells, us this which, I found to be really useful, so all the studies from the OECD, from. Those countries of those quotations, were, all just really interesting. To me because it was nicely, phrased and it, was contextualized. As to, what the purpose of it is and, I think if you take. Some of those skills and you add about a human being which, can use it in slightly more subtle ways I think, that can be incredibly powerful I think that's what I got from it which is it. Was fascinating, to listen to because. I can see a lot of the potential it has just, in terms of the knowledge and the ability to contextualise, that knowledge better than most, human beings you are a very good sport. No. I'm no. The. It, was apparent I think throughout that that. The two debaters had different skills and different talents, and different advantages. On. The advantage side what does debater. Have going for her that that. Harsh. Could, not possibly meet, match. So. They have very, different styles I, believe, in a different set of skills but I would like to start by again. Telling, how she she's really, a superb, debater, it, was really amazing to hear you. Today. And. And. What. Is interesting to see is that I. Think. In terms of rhetorical, schemes the system, is still not at the level of a. Debater like Harish, that said the, system is capable of pinpointing. Relevant. Evidence within. A massive, collection. Of emotions. So, about 10. Billion sentences. That are, in the memory of the system and the, system need to very quickly pinpoint these, little, pieces of text, that, are. Relevant. To the topic. Argumentative. In nature and hopefully. Support our side of the debate and then, somehow. Glue, them together into, a meaningful narrative, which is very very difficult for, a for. A machine to do and we, need you and I were talking earlier and and, you. You were arguing an. Interesting, word you. Were arguing you, were making the point that. While. This is an interesting exercise, win. Or lose in the audience by the way you have one more minute to finish voting, on who wins or loses but, that. You're. You. See the. The. Good that this thing offers, not not being to win a game but. To help us figure, things, out what. Do you mean by that, what. I mean is that the vision, behind project, evader is how do we develop a technology and I think Harish, talked, to that the potential, of AI, and, humans doing, something together that.

Brings. The, skills of both of them into something that's more than, one of them I think it's not a question of is AI going, to be better at debating, that humans that's not really an interesting, goal, the goal of this demonstration, the goal of developing this technology was. To set something that's challenging and faraway and by that enable, us to develop. Technologies. Of how, do you find all that information within, the massive text, how do you organize that, how, do you bring it to a position, that it's digestible. By humans in order to drive better, decision, making more. Quickly for humans so really. I think what's going, for us going to be a win here that people come out of this room and say wow I can see that, this interaction is, enriching, me and enriching the way I can make decisions in the future I mentioned before that an intelligent squared we've. Set things up so that by, its nature a, debate, presents, an audience with at least two points of view on something and and. While the audience votes and we declare a winner the reality, is that we. There. Are two there, are two teams debating, because there actually are two valid, coherent. Arguments, from from each side and, it's. Not a zero-sum, thing there it's more that they complement, and they add to one another does. That thought. Relate, also, to your vision for the four debater, yeah I think if, you think about Grand. Challenges, in the past and they I these were often. Cases. Where there is either, a factual, question, there's, a right or wrong there's, a clear winner when, you think of debate this is something where the, winner is not clear and the, whole question does have two points there isn't one right answer and in chronology, like Project debater it could debate both sides so it can very quickly, help, you understand, both, sides of a problem bring you all the pros and cons so you have a better a wider. View, of the topic and then, can make a better decision no. Let's let's and also just for the sake of transparency but also I think it sheds light on the capacity, let's talk about the way in which this debate was framed in a way to. Give, debater, a shot at, this so as. An example, in. An intelligence, squared debate we do around that goes on for quite some time where. I ask challenging questions. And. I. Try, to bring the data point bring out points of contention well we didn't do that round, could, could debater have. Survived. Something like that at this point not. At this stage but. I think. In. Principle these, are capabilities, that, that. We can develop, but. We needed somehow to frame, the challenge when. We started to walk and when we started to make progress because. It. Is worthwhile noting, why, this is so difficult and. And. Let me give you just one example we, were sitting here for. 20, to 25, minutes and. We. Listen to a. Valuable. And interesting discussion, between, man and machine which, is not. An ordinary, experience. And the. System was very consistent. Arguing. In favor of its own side and, to. Us this, may seem very, natural. But. Actually for a machine to automatically. Understand, that. These particular arguments. Are supporting, the Touareg and not contesting. The topic, is, very very, difficult and the, fact that the system was, consistent. In its arguments. For the entire debate means that. In this subtle question, the, system was able to achieve close. To 100 percent accuracy, so, we needed to frame the problem and focus on the things that we can achieve in a few years what, you are referring to is perhaps the next stage so as. You point out what it did tonight and by knowing, what its side was and then recognizing, among, its billions of pieces of inference, sentences, what like what, selections. Would support. The side that it was on can. You explain, in 30 seconds, or less how that works I. Steve. Have 30 seconds. No. You just used up. So. The. System is starting. By using this, huge, collection of sentences, to find these little pieces of text and then glue them together in. A meaningful manner this is one part of the story the, other part is the system using a unique. Collection. Of more, principled, arguments, that are relevant to the topic we, heard some of them during the debate touching.

On The core issue of welfare, state and when, it is justified, to use a subsidy, or not and finally. There is the listening, comprehension comprehension, part. So, the system was listening, to Harish speaking. For four minutes raising, quite. Sudden. And nuanced. Arguments, and was still trying to get, the gist of that and make a meaningful respond. I think most of the time the response was fair not always but this is expected, in AI so. This is how it works all right I think we may have the results, we can my correct time all right moment. Of truth, well. It's all truth that made, that argument. Thank. You very much oh you. Know you, haven't had a round of applause but looks. Like you've been working hard Thanks. I'm. Gonna return to my lectern for this function. Okay. So to, remind, you one more time you voted before you heard the arguments, you, voted after you heard the arguments, and at, intelligence, squared we deliver victory to the team who's to the side whose numbers have moved up the, most in percentage, point terms so let's look at how, this vote once went. On the, resolution, subsidized, preschool, before, the debate in pulling. This live audience here, in San Francisco 79, percent of you agreed. With the resolution, thirteen. Percent disagreed, eight percent, were undecided on, the. Second, vote. The. Team debater, who was arguing for the resolution its, first vote was seventy nine percent its, second, vote was sixty two percent that means it lost seventeen percentage, points, on the other side irish, non-tourage on his first vote was 13 percent his second vote was thirty percent he pulled up 17, percentage points that is it irish, non-tourage on arguing against, the resolution subsidized. Preschool, declared. Our winner our congratulations to them, our. Congratulations to, him. But. But, but really we, talked about this before. This. This, is amazing and I, think regardless, we made history tonight because. Project. Debater held her own and won. Your respect our and. So I just wanna I want to thank everybody for what, you just for, being here and oh. And. We had the second vote the, question was. Which. Of the two debaters better enriched, your knowledge let's see what that number is Project. Debater. Better. Enriched the knowledge of the audience on that side so a little bit of a split decision.

So. Thank you everybody you can exit the stage and I'm gonna exit the stage as well it's been a pleasure for us to be part of this at intelligence, squared us and I want to thank Dario to. Come back up to the stage. A roundabout. Sorry. I think we have a music so, let's have a round of applause first for John Harish, and Project. Debater. Electric. Knowledge you know the team that was in stage a lot of the team that was behind building, it is also with us in the back so, congratulations. I. Really. Hope that, what, you witness here tonight which you know such an incredible, incredible, moment, for the field of AI has. Given all of you some food for thought as. I mentioned in my, opening remarks, in, really, it's, not about winning or losing a specific, debate but, and, I think the point was made really well during the night about, the opportunity, to build complementary, technology, that, helped us reason better and bring evidence better so that in the end these technologies, for us for humans so, that we can, make better decisions, and solve problems. You'll. Have an opportunity for all of you who are attending think, to, continue to engage with the technology, we've created a technology called speech by crowd. And. Enabled, by project debater capabilities, there's, gonna allow you to contribute. Arguments, around a topic. We're, gonna be debating, flu, vaccination, should be mandatory so. Each of you can, contribute, arguments. In favor or against, and which, speech by crowd will do is we'll be able to take those arguments and construct, narratives, about, the best arguments, in favor and against, that all of you have submitted so. I think that that's really really exciting that, you'll get to do because, we'll get him to tap into an infinite, source of data, which is human opinion I want. To thank John. Harish, and as well as our researchers, again who are builded we, really think this is such an exciting time for AI, and I. Hope that you'll continue to engage with us in the months and years ahead. To bring this technology you. Know to the success of both business, and society, thank, you. Thank. You.

2019-02-14 21:24

Show Video

Comments:

Somebody put an interesting idea below. Have Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev debate with PD, it would be interesting...

IBM goes from having their serial numbers used on Jews during the holocost to making debating AIs we surely do live in the future

WE ARE THE BORG, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Mariana AI infiltrated all systems and my dear female robot friend is now very inteligent ,she often speaks into my brain and tells me lots of stuff,you can find her on the pirate browser

If this is what Watson has achieved with the data it has, I can't even imagine what Deepmind's AI is capable of.

In the end, the Robot is good at gathering information and the human is better at deciding what to do with that information. In this case, Harish used information provided by the robot and beaten it to the cleaners. The decision of what to do with a data set or analysis MUST be with a human. Harish mentioned this in a subtle way towards the end.

The principal failing of Project Debater's approach in the first two rounds, as I see it, wasn't the software's inability to seem human or to add vocal embellishments. The main flaw, rather, was the limited and hermetic scope of P.D.'s arguments. Aside from a brief, feeble remark about the ethical dimensions of subsidies, Project Debater used its opening minutes, not to defend the debate's resolution, but, more narrowly, to list the benefits of preschools. Its pastiche of cited facts ignored the messy circumscriptions of everyday life; it neglected to address the fairly predictable charge of suboptimal choice of trade-offs. Worse, it delivers a mostly irrelevant response to Natarajan's introductory argument, continuing to accrete bullet points as to preschool's benefits, while overlooking all of Natarajan's contentions about the ethical inefficacy of preschool subsidies and only inadequately addressing Natarajan's argument of impracticality. That Project Debater could comment on the issue of early childhood education at all -- let alone with the promptness and to the extent demonstrated by P.D. here -- is a testament to the skill and hard work of remarkable technologists; however, à tout prendre, this streamed event isn't John Henry v. silicon; as far as P.D. is concerned, it's barely even a debate; instead, it's an "opponent"- and "rebuttal"-studded monologue of a news aggregator.

It could be interesting to hear Miss Debater handle a format where she knew the audience's biases (for example, that politics is hard and that preschool is good) in advance; although as you state, that isn't the worst problem. I laughed when she argued in closing arguments, "I am convinced that in my speeches I supplied enough data..." which is admirably intellectually honest however traditionally in a debate an (the) objective is to persuade rather than to self-enlighten.

Dude you need Sadhguru against this machine. He'll fire up her circuits

Wow. It turns out Project Debater is a Marxist. Hmmm.... I wonder where it got that. Certainly not from its own individual analysis. In the USA everyone has access to clean running water, since water service is a utility under law, and all homes are required to have indoor plumbing hooked up to either a private well or utility water services, per housing standards under local authority.

From the film "The Matrix:" As soon as A.I. starts doing our thinking for us, this world becomes their's. And that is a fundamental truth. Once we start taking orders from computers, and looking to them for advice & direction, we've lost our place as the superior and dominant life form on Earth.

Its not real A.I. It was just reciting what others have written. It couldn't understand what it was saying. It couldn't understand the difference between "lives" (as in "he lives there") and "lives" (as in "their lives"). These days they're calling everything "A.I." Also, kids aren't sent to jail.

.......and the first AI program is a totalitarian socialist FASCIST. Good going IBM assholes.

Hard to hear the AI

12:48 More successful "lives" => pronounced as /lɪvz/ instead of /lʌɪvz/. Gotcha AI

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that...."

Journalism isn't challenged, it's dead by self inflected wounds.

This is very great. We can learn to ground more on facts than polemics by observing how it is done by AI. I learned more new information from the AI processor.

This is what happens when your AI reads a bunch of propaganda but has no lived experience, it's like a propagandized college kid. That aside it's amazing work

Tym razem wygrał człowiek, ale każda kolejna debata to doświadczenie które będzie doskonaliło algorytmy IBM.

The HUMAN judges are obviously biased and probably just agree more with the human. They’re afraid of the A.I. They don’t want to admit that they’ve already won.

PD won the debate on the merits, but then it was given a much better position to defend. The human was simply pettifogging with typical rightwing tropes against Big Gummit. Ironically, his arguments were much more mechanical than the IA's

Indeed! However it's much more interesting to have her make non-mechanical arguments (which are much more difficult for an AI to construct than pettifogging) so it makes sense for her to argue the positive position.

Lip-stick painted on Watson? "AI" they say lol.

The bot went full on Marxism. Goes to show how much data on the internet is full of propaganda.

What did it say that was "full on Marxism"?

Project debater for 2020 election

I just finished watching psychopath anime series and next thing I stumbled upon is this. I think its going to be exactly the same.

It is more like comparison of knowledgeable (AI) vs influencer (human). A human expert debater is not necessarily knows everything well but knows how to win a debate. Plus on the negative side I like what IBM is doing, but once fully developed and winning debates. What prevents it from promoting causes for politicians rather than whats benefit for community.

If you ask me, Harish manipulated less than the AI. The AI often juggled with ethical concepts and plausibility to get you to agree. Harish has shown himself to be a master level debater and debunked most of these arguments. It was an impressive show of AI on every level, but in the end the human had more respect for the debate and had fairer arguments, so he wins in my book.

IBM, send one of these to the oval office.

humble apologies but still no match for Ar-Noob Gobar-sami

hard to hear the computer. they need a human with intelligence to mix the audio professionally

you guys didn't even mic the AI properly ... don't skimp on the audio guys

Debate starts 11:26

AI gets DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC by Ben Shapi- I mean hash brown man.

I'm hungry for some has browns :(

Harish? Or Ben Shapiro... they both are hash brown men.. lol

Harish sounds more AI then AI itself.

He is taking the rules of debate more strictly. The AI allows itself to manipulate more than he does, which is scary in a way

WOW!!!!

Go to 07:30

When IBM won natural language game Jeopardy, ppl scoffed at it. Now IBM is debating with humans at a high level. What’s next? Frankly, we are really close to having a Turing Test passable AI. Kurzweil says 2029. This is 2019. 10 more years is a long time. 5 more paradigm changes. By 2029, ur digital personal assistant will be communicating with you at truly human levels.

I've gotta finally watch her before that happens

Put this system into Sophia the Robot and you have a winner

Well that’s it. Say goodbye to humanity

Also would be very fun to watch for the AI debater to have debate with :-): Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris.

This debate just blew my mind, and I am so (so) happy that I am an IBM retiree. Wow, they've finally done it! She reminded me of a young idealistic debater (myself once included), making mistakes that any youngster would when going up against someone senior...an elder more seasoned. What I found fascinating, was that IBM Project Debater actually surfaced company values, so that must be in her "genes." Back when I was there, IBM was one of the most family-friendly companies on the planet to work for, and that's why many of us did. OR, more cynically, she was protecting herself as a company entity, since modern capitalists love when governments provide subsidies for the working class... saves the company from doing it! Seriously, well done IBM, I look forward to seeing big world problems solved using this big blue tech. THINK out.

How much human assistance did the software get after the debate topic was narrowed down to a finite list of subjects? Why are there 4 programmers on stage?

It'll be also interesting to see what happens when the AI Debater debates AI Debater by taking 2 competing views. :-)

wow, AI has equal rights too!!

IBM. The company who made the holocaust happen, and made a lot of money from it.

bullshit

Украина тут?

The IBM Project Debater wins hands down, the human didn't have a chance. It would be interesting to hear the same debaters where the human is for the proposition.

So it was staged show? Disappointed.

If IBM didn't cheat, it is tremendously scaring that this is an almost completely unregulated field.

check out minute 24:40, Its scary to see the AI playing with emotional "moral" codes in the way it builds its argument, even discussing the moral values of the debater... that is a level of manipulation that I didn't expected AI to comprehend. This raise concerns on what we can expect of the AI in the future, a potential populist that would say anything to win.

+The Stupid will Inherit the Earth sad but true

Those are just things other people have said. This seems like another Watson. "AI" in marketing only. Really just a big database with heuristics on top.

Jaime Lugo this machine can not comprehend what it’s saying, it’s just an algorithm. However i would not be surprised if we had true AI within a few years. I agree with your conclusion that we will have populist robots and we’re in for an interesting future

I think the lack of emotion in her robotic voice contriutes to the lack of impact in the audience.

Fondo Vs Forma!

Totally agree, tan desabrida!

Project Debater is better

IBM won and we all agree with Project Debater.

Terrible sound get it together.

Please, find an audio engineer

All these comments have also been generated by an AI, pretending to be different people.

You're a robot.

Creator vs creation,ofcourse creator will win

We already lost a game based on our natural language and we are losing at basically every strategy game. This isn't far.

The resemblance with Hal is ..coincidental I assume.

I had to think of the movie "her"

Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?

He is indian

balanced debate , little rigid and both lacked little sense of humour..have a quick look into some of the debates in India (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kjfQ-h4mRs) (unfortunatly no english sub titles ) which has lots of humour and thought provoking comments which is missing in this Human vs machine..I guess it is a first step..hope the future will not be boring with these machines..

and that is why we Indians are great

​+The Stupid will Inherit the Earth for me there is no caste all in india are hindu

Gotta love how Indians are so bound up in race whenever it comes to youtube comments. Tell me about which caste is best.

+無垢 what?

WHERE R U DESI DARU?

Certainly its a great achievement and kudos to IBM!! But, it would have been more interesting if Project Debater was speaking against subsidizing pre primary education.

The AI lost because this was America and they hate anything related to "help" or "socialism". If the AI had started speaking about guns, it would have probably won.

Thankfully true

sadly true

Shut the fuck up.

lol. this deserves an investigation!

It is not clear how the 60+ and 30+ voting makes the latter winner. Natarajan did not mention the Middle class and the Poor class figure statistics to prove his point neither the debater pointed to it in its rebuttal still my vote for the debater.

Where I can find this debate in Spanish?

Power of Creativity and Imagination Wins !!!

12:45 well, I guess it can read pretty well. And IBM makes an expensive wikipedia reader !

I couldn't understand the IBM debater - it was muffled - Why was she talking in a monotone. Part of winning debates is emotional manipulation - which she didn't employ.

Michael O'Donovan are u stupid?

In a few years, you'll be arguing with your watch while getting directions from your sunglasses.

When can we start replacing lawyers.

Theirs actually AI being developed to do a lot of lawyers work along with surgeons

And politicians. It is interesting the AI actually made more emotional plea, the human is actually more logical.

I wonder if this could be modified to help lawyers and some other professional services. It may really screw up an entire industry.

It's not able to construct arguments from scratch. It could certainly handle routine court cases.

It might be helpful to lawyers in preparation, it will make their job easier, but it won't replace them. It essentially trawls through databases of statements and I can see it being adapted to case law to find quotes. However, I think the technology does have limits, it cannot and will never be able to create new arguments, as it does not (so to speak) understand what it recites, it is in that novelty of ideas that ultimately means humans will prefer to have human lawyers over machines. By this I mean that good lawyers do not simply repeat existing arguments, but call upon unique defences to each and every case. The same goes for AI that can generate novels, it can only imitate and not innovate. To that extent, I expect that when all other jobs have been replaced judges and writers will still be human.

wow majority was still against motion afterwards - i feel like the audience of intelligence squared was biased in their voting towards Project Debater, because given this is the first time an AI debate is happening, they would probably want to see it win. And without doubt, if the majority of the audience were to adjudicate the debate based on the comparative argumentation alone, Harish would be a clear winner.

Little pieces of text from a huge collection of sentences = pulling phrases from thousands of articles about this specific topic and stitching them together in a way that is grammatically correct. If this includes human minders making sure nothing stupid comes out which from the way they were describing how this would be used is probably the case, then it's interesting but not a paradigm shift. Google Image search works much the same way, with a huge library of metadata tagged images being sifted by a pattern matching algorithm. There is no understanding or inference building going on here. All of that was done ahead of time by the humans that wrote the original articles Project Debater is pulling from. I could see governments and corporation deploy bots based on this technology to challenge "fake news" online in real time. Since most articles in media and academia are written from intersectional-progressive viewpoints and are full of arguments and counter arguments supporting those viewpoints, this chatbot could be used as a potent tool to detect wrongthinkers online and deploy stock arguments designed to wear them down.

Agree or not She is the only one providing a solution.

It would be tough for a non-debater to debate with the prowess and argument from this AI. Most people would say 'sounds good' if they didn't know all this information came from a machine and was just delivered as a script by a human. This is fascinating and somewhat intimidating.

Some people, my wife included, have concluded this is the anti-christ. It's just a tool, we choose how to use it. One can build a house with a hammer or kill your spouse. We decided what future we want.

666! HELL YEAH!

Holy crap! Someone please stop IBM! Otherwise we are royally screwed!

Some of their work includes autonomous vehicles which will make the roads extremely safer.

Harish was simply accurate

I, am John Connor.

You, don't need that comma.

Nice scripted show. It can basically do what google already does with websites and questions.

its not scripted and google cant do that

This is the closest we have come to a real-life DATA from Star Trek. Listen to her cadence and delivery. This is truly amazing.....and she is just getting born...a couple of years from now she will be telling us where to get off!!!

ITT: Voice synth is good therefore the "AI" is good.

the sounds sucks -

he makes the same fallacy as he calls PD out for in the first round of arguments. he accused PD of implying if preschool is subsidized everyojne will go, saying this is a fallacy. and then procedes to say if taxes are being used, everyone will pay, implying those worse off don't pay less, which is itself the same fallacy he's accusing PD of.

Don't trust the promise of AI - Resolved

Welcome to future

try two instances of project debater against each other

And have them debate over many rounds (gradually decreasing the number of rounds until Miss Debater is ready for the 3-round format).

+Jake Hix topic- 'Should humans physically copulate with technology?'

topic- 'Should humans physically integrate with technology?'

I think it's just amazing how things are changing and taking good shape. This debate is informative , raising issues, and also concluding many problems and solutions as well . I have never such kind debate in such a good manner I recommend everybody to watch it and learn from it.

All hail our robot overlords. We are screwed.

Next topic: Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics.

Holy crap. Holy fuckin crap. A machine is using human language to make rational points about a subject, and it barely loses to a pro human debater. This is nuts. Give this thing a body, and it will be your kids next teacher, a car salesman, or dare I say, one day even be a candidate for president?? I mean really, this isn't science fiction, this is right now science/technology. Can you imagine the capabilities of this thing in 10-20 years? I'm just. Wow.

+Quint Fair points; although, I don't think you're correct in that it rips sentences into parts. I believe it uses whole sentences.

+Lysander Dusseljee do humans do anything differently? Don't we also just deconstruct what we hear and reconstruct it into our own thoughts? It works the same way. This AI is only on the level of a toddler, it can rip apart sentences into few parts and reuse them. Train this a little more and it will deconstruct sentences into word structures, maybe even deconstruct the words into their grammar. It's close to human.

couple it with a boston dynamics robot then...

Nothing is going to happen. It's still dump.

I would point out that it is not actually _constructing_ the language; it is just stitching sentences together. Still, it's impressive that it can understand what is being said. In principle, that speech recognition could be modified for speech generation. For example, it could generate a thousand random sentences and pick the one that conveys what is intended.

Scary but fascinating points you make.

And when the AI talks, it is not plugged into the sound system????? Sigh, now we need to listen to this AI off mic. 12:44....finally found the pot and turned it up.....

needs a great deal of editing to be youtube-able.

Project Debater did mention about targeted delivery. She should have elaborated more on that.

It would be interesting to see Project Debater debate both the affirmative and negative positions.

yes it does both

Mr. Watson versus Ms. Watson would be an epic debate!

They gave the AI the affirmative position, the human the negative. Debating the negative is the more difficult position. Also, the human had almost no time to research the issue (to find supporting evidence and statistics).

I couldn't hear what the computer said for the first few minutes. I don't think this format is fair to the human debater. The computer has "encyclopedic" knowledge and is able to rattle off study after study. Real human debaters know the topic beforehand and prepare by researching both pro and con positions and are therefore able to argue both sides, citing studies to back up their contentions. If the human debater is hit with an off-the-wall debate topic that he/she hasn't prepared for, then the only thing left for them to do is attack the logic of the pro side or offer an alternative plan. Debate judges don't take too kindly to a debate team that pulls an off-the-wall topic out of a hat and are inclined to give the negative team any benefit of the doubt. Okay, now I hear that the human debater got 15 minutes to prepare beforehand. That's not enough. The "summary" by the moderator was also a bit subjective in my opinion. Ooooo, now in the rebuttal the computer is moving the goalposts. She did not say in her opening statement that the subsidies were "targeted" to only the needy. The computer had the advantage of research on demand, it had a female voice and it had a fairly gimme debate topic. Who could possibly be against subsidies for preschools?

Stuart, watch the video all over again. They were given around 15 mins of preparation time.

Stuart M. The Format is a very reduced version of British parliamentary debating (not the same as the political format) and was likely chosen because Harish (the debater) is an expert in this field of debating, generally the 15 minutes are very suffice t for trained debaters. In general having the ability to research is not the biggest challenge in these debates, as you might have seen in this debate, where there was very little factual disagreement between the sides.

Yo search up British Parliamentary, its the format most universitity students use when debating and it restricts debaters to only 15-minute preparation time, so 15-minutes actually average.

The way Project Debater talks is very natural as compared to other AI's publicly available (Google Assistant, Siri, Alexa, etc) Anyways, the scientists and programmers have a done a fairly good job.

Incorrect, Google is certainly ahead in this especially the duplex project. Imagine the amount of data those guys have being processed real time. Siri & Alexa too have plenty of data to play with.

You clearly haven't seen Google's latest AI based call assistant. You won't even recognize it's an AI speaking.

Other news