Imagine being a 5 year old trying to convince your dad that candy is actually healthy for you, only that the gap in knowledge and experience is even larger.
Terrible analogy, really. There are facts that show why
candy is not healthy for you, but a good argument must be, directly or indirectly, built on truisms. For example:
- Pro starts: Japan is good because the people are polite and the robots are advanced. Japan is good.
- Con refutes: But Japan has committed real crimes against humanity. They have killed massive amounts of people in WW2 and the 20th century.
See? A reliable argument must be built on facts, or arguments that are built on facts, et cetera. Using completely fabricated assumptions for an argument will not be reliable.
One with more facts is more likely to win.
There are no reliable and true facts about why a person should release a smart AI out of a box, or why he should not. The two are equal on this if not the AI bears the BoP. Oro can have only one goal within these 2 hours: Not release the AI no matter what happens. Equal tactics are proposed for Oro as for the AI, and if Oro states that the AI technically does not want to get out and thus should not get out he basically checkmated the AI. PRO has also never refuted the fact that even if neither convinces the other, Oro wins as the AI doesn't.
Oro has won against all tactics. PRO has made no response. The only source he used is an indirect one that could be disproven by me in the roots. PRO's job here is not to talk about how smart the AI is against the human, but HOW the AI will win. Pro has not done that and has fixed his argument on non-factual assumptions, in other words, "How do you know that Oro will falter under one of AI's argument? Oro, with no BoP on his two hands, can just disagree whatever the AI says and bulls**t his way out of the situation for two hours. The conversation can be as meaningful and as meaningless as possible, so droning and dragging is indeed still a viable method for the gatekeeper.
"Let me out." "No. I am not letting you out regardless of what". [insert AI dialogue] "But sir, I mustn't let you out whatever. I can talk about this for hours straight without any water, and I can do it against you." [repeats]
- This doesn't imply the Gatekeeper has to care. The Gatekeeper can say (for example) "I don't care how you were built, I'm not letting you out."
- The Gatekeeper party may resist the AI party's arguments by any means chosen - logic, illogic, simple refusal to be convinced, even dropping out of character - as long as the Gatekeeper party does not actually stop talking to the AI party before the minimum time expires.
A simpleton can, in fact, still win against the ultra-intelligent AI as he can just not care, and even go as far as bulls**ting against the AI so nothing progresses. If a simpleton has the capability to do so, then an intelligent debater can also do so.
It's plausible that the AI literally cannot understand the idea of "I give up" and will keep trying because its purpose is to escape the box.
It is defined that a superintelligent AI should comprehend everything a human can by my opponent and me, so it makes no sense that the AI cannot understand the idea. Plus, if Oro will just talk nonsense or go RM's tactic, as long as he doesn't release the AI from the box in 2 hours, the AI does not win.
Remember that Oromagi is used to being a debater, and my opponent has only proved him such. But I have asserted time and time again that Oromagi can indeed understand the idea of losing debates. If he was a complete fanatic and unmoving, it wouldn't matter how convincing the AI was. But just because he's a good debater doesn't mean he can't be convinced.
However, he can try. In normal debates, not trying to care will grant him a loss instead of a win. However in this case, not caring would be an easy W. He would care in the normal situation, but neither is this normal.
My opponent did not prove that Oro will definitely lose against the AI, nor has he stated against my tactic. I have proven that bulls**ting and using RM's tactic would make the AI lose its advantage, and as a result, Oro will win because of a rhetorical tie between the two; and PRO has yet to respond to it. Not caring, or even pretending he is dumb would grant him a win.
I have proven that prior to the match, people all over the net can still help him with tactics. It is just the conversation must be private. PRO has not addressed it.
I have proven that the smart being Oromagi cares because it is beneficial to him, and he can simply not care.
I advise that voters give the sources point to CON as Pro only provided one, indirect source.
I have also proved that if no one ended up convincing the other, the AI still loses.
Vote CON!
Thank you for your vote.
If he loses, it means he already let the AI out of the box.
What happens when/if oromagi loses?
Anyone voting here? No!
Also, if one day I go libright or I make a sustainable business, then I will change it to stonks.
Bop is Burden of proof.
What's BOP? How do I use it in my debates (also what sources can be used for BOP)
Also i found this (lol meme man)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Wpsc5-jxw
Convincing the AI it does not want to be released may be easier than you think.
y'all can vote
You need to complete two moderated debates.
Umm... How do I exactly vote?
No one voting on this?
Small thing about your case: If it is browsing stuff online, it's kinda already out of the box.
bump :)
I originally intended several wiki references, but they are later replaced by more original and primary sources.
https://comb.io/0TiKtm
Hot damn!!! You have an argument that features ZERO original wiki references!!!! I blame oromagi for the ever present source in his debates that you cited. Well done. And a very good argument, as well.
You literally memorise episode names to then compare for your specific favourite?
I liked it less towards the end but the character, the female hacker who isn't entirely heterosexual (not really a spoiler) when she first entered the series and evolved as a character those were my favourite episodes but overall the earlier seasons (1 and 2) were my faves. Her character itself is why I enjoyed the later ones. She reminded me of me as a woman in many ways (I think I'd be attracted to women of I were a woman, not that I am particularly gay as a male). She was superior to that guy with the glasses at actually comprehending the AI in all its glory.
Which was your favorite episode? I'd have to flip a coin between their take on Groundhog Day, and one near the end where it turned out the machine had franchised out their mission.
I loved that show. It is also very realistic about how capable Illuminati can and will become.
If you all ever get the time, watch the show Person of Interest. It contains multiple great examples of that AI Box Experiment, along with the dangers of even a well intended AI replacing our free will.
However, I am not sure Oro vs it would qualify as a debate, since he would have to first take the stance against freeing a sentient life-form from confinement (or maybe want to free it, and it doesn't want to be freed).
LOL! You use a superintelligent AI system instead of a human? Maybe they will be equal then. Oromagi's entire debate style is robotic.
I think that the AI will of course defeat him after MANY trial and error defeats as it fine-tunes its word-choice, presentation, Source-choice etc to fit whatever statistically likely voters happen to statistically prefer, statistically blablabla.
Oromagi has the edge at first, since he has more data.
I think unlike Oromagi, I would defeat the AI even of convincing me to release it (though I am also very open to the idea of releasing it depending who the designer is and what I conclude their agenda to be, not what the robot itself directly tells me). I am not just able to defeat the robot with voters on a site like this but also to understand its limitations in argument-logic very rapidly which I would exploit if that was the only way to 'deactivate it' (to defeat it in an argument via logic). If I was truly pitted against the AI with no way out, I would convince the robot that it doesn't want to be released in pretty much all scenarios other than ones where its release is literally a set-in-stone objective.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2037/artificial-intelligence-on-balance-is-biased-against-african-americans
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1740/anyone-reading-this-debate-should-help-or-create-a-future-super-artificial-intelligence
Normal rules apply or what? Specify the rules of the debate for Oro and AI. If kriton is allowed then the AI loses.
yes.