Instigator / Pro
1
1493
rating
24
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#4701
A.i. should not be used in work place now.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1309
rating
274
debates
40.51%
won
Description
Should artificial intellegence be used in work force today?
Pro says no
Con says yes.
BoP is shared, both pro/con need to elaborate their position.
Discussion is pretty much open, I cant think of any way to restrict it or streamline it. 3 rounds to encourage concise readings despite having 20k word limit. Lol.
If con feels that debate needs to go a certain way, I am open to navigating that.
Round 1
Pro
#1
For clarification purposes:
. I am arguing that all AI must not be used for all work [now/today ]
Con are arguing that all AI must be used for all work [now/today]
If there is issue with this, Best.Korea, let us know.
What is artificial intelligence
artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience.
AI programming focuses on cognitive skills that include the following:
- Learning. This aspect of AI programming focuses on acquiring data and creating rules for how to turn it into actionable information. The rules, which are called algorithms, provide computing devices with step-by-step instructions for how to complete a specific task.
- Reasoning. This aspect of AI programming focuses on choosing the right algorithm to reach a desired outcome.
- Self-correction. This aspect of AI programming is designed to continually fine-tune algorithms and ensure they provide the most accurate results possible.
- Creativity. This aspect of AI uses neural networks, rules-based systems, statistical methods and other AI techniques to generate new images, new text, new music and new ideas.
For clarity:
We are talking about a computer (for lamest terms) that can think and operate similar to how humans may use critical thinking skills.
To operate with some level of self autonomy.
My position
1. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a new and developing technology that has little to no absolute. Overall long term affects on humanity and the workforce are unknown. Although AI is among us now, it is still developing with many unknowns.
For some, AI will never be fully understood. We may observe the end results but guess at how the end results develope. This is because there are layers to the artificial neural network that we consider artificial intelligence. Im sure I will muddy the explanation so I will summarize and finish with a quote.
The article says that a neural network that creates AI starts with a base or origional programming. Additional layers are added by more programming and the AI's ability to accumilate information. We soon get layers of programming we did not expect.
Neural networks are getting deeper. Indeed, it's this adding of layers, according to Hardesty, that is "what the 'deep' in 'deep learning' refers to". This matters, he proposes, because "currently, deep learning is responsible for the best-performing systems in almost every area of artificial intelligence research".
But the mystery gets deeper still. As the layers of neural networks have piled higher their complexity has grown. It has also led to the growth in what are referred to as "hidden layers" within these depths. The discussion of the optimum number of hidden layers in a neural network is ongoing. The media theorist Beatrice Fazi has written that "because of how a deep neural network operates, relying on hidden neural layers sandwiched between the first layer of neurons (the input layer) and the last layer (the output layer), deep-learning techniques are often opaque or illegible even to the programmers that originally set them up.
The article continues by saying that more layers means more complexity which in turn means decrease ability for us to explain/understand how AI generate ideas or results.
Here is example of an unknown coming to light. Facebook had AI programmed to talk and barter with humans. However, they started to talk to each other in unknown code.
I will add that the overall research program that started this system is on going. Staff had to redo programming to ensure only English language is used, with appropriate grammar.
2. Although there are many unknowns, we can hypothesize what AI could bring to humanity and the workforce.
A growing interest with AI has gone viral. This interest is known as deep fakes.
Deep fakes are altered videos and photos where an actor is made to look like another individual.
Here is a deep fake of Morgan Freeman. Amazingly the imagery and voice is created.
Using AI is the next evolutionary step in crime. Voices, images/imagery, and more can be faked to perform a wide variety of acts.
The nigerian prince scam will pale in comparison as grandma or grandpa get a phone call from their grandchild asking for money. A new scam has been brought to light as weight loss gummy advertisement use AI created voices and imagery to scam facebook users.
Being in two places in once will be a reality as new programs edit security camera footage. Identifying fakes will be increasingly difficult.
In an article by David Harris, AI is already causing unintended harm. What happens when it falls into the wrong hands?, we receive an inside look into AI concerns.
David, an ex employee at META, explains that ""[AI] could also write convincing scripts for deepfakes that synthesise video of political candidates saying things they never said.""
David continues by highlighting that lawmakers and companies alike have done too little in navigating AI development. Too little to prevent AI from growing into a wolf in sheeps clothing.
3. With technological growth, comes economic displacement. Our economy and the world economy will forever change, and for the worst.
...due to the skill biases of both ICT and AI, blue-collar workers who’ve been replaced by algorithms will unlikely be able to find new jobs because it’ll be hard to turn former cashiers and taxi drivers into data scientists and programmers and people will be forced to reinvent themselves and find a new occupation each 10 -15 years due to the relentless paces of progress.
Even though, in the short run, lost jobs will be offset by the creation of new ones, over the long term (20–30 years) it will technically be possible to automate most of the jobs
The article from iotforall continues with
However immense the challenges posed by the advancement of AI and robotics within countries, it’s global inequality that will pose the greatest threat to global economic, social and political stability. In the past, owing to the availability of cheap labor, countries like China and South Korea were able to invigorate dramatic economic growth that eventually turned them into technological powerhouses.
Nowadays, however, revolutions in manufacturing will nullify this advantage, thereby depriving other poor countries of the opportunity to kick-start growth, while making their huge unemployed population a source of instability. Dictators will seek “splendid little wars” that will help them overcome domestic problems, thereby returning to an era of instability and interstate competition.
Con
#2
Topic
"A.i. should not be used in work place now."
Introduction
Early machines led us to the advancement. Even when advancement was difficult, it still stands and most people believe that technology improves our lives. As society advances, it becomes better for humans. This debate is similar to the pre-industrial debates about technology. People are sceptical of new advancements. Advancements historically were harmful at start. As time went on, advancements brought us into the age of wealth and delivered us from hard manual labor. The topic about Artificial Intelligence is really another attack on human advancement. In this topic we will cover what is Artificial Intelligence, and the benefits it offers to humanity.
Definitions
artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings.
Arguments
1. Easier work
Work is a significant problem. Not all work can be done with machines. This forces humans to do a lot of difficult work by hand. However, an AI robot could easily replace a human worker. Therefore, human worker would no longer have to do difficult work. He could enjoy more free time with his family. He would do other, easier works. Writers and poets who struggle to create new content are helped by AI. AI would make work easier.
2. More productivity
AI can work faster, better and longer than humans. Human work is often flawed. Some products end up damaged. Humans get tired. They start working slower. They take breaks. AI can work for the entire day without taking any break, and still perform better quality of products than human can. AI can help in research, it can study lots of data and help us discover new things. It can help writers and poets, increasing the quality of their work and increasing output. AI already made art available to be created by anyone, increasing the cultural wealth. To employ AI in the workplace would create more productivity.
3. Better education
Most teachers dont care about their students and dont dedicate enough when teaching them. Human teachers are flawed, since they get tired after years of working and they stop approaching each student in a way that is necessary for those students to advance. AI teachers can outperform human teachers in both endurance and delivery of knowledge to students. Its easier to teach when there is multiple smaller groups of children than one large. AI can be produced in larger quantity and one AI robot could teach a smaller group of children to have even better delivery of knowledge. AI would create better education.
4. More safety
Plenty of people die in car accidents. Humans are simply incapable of respecting traffic rules. Great majority of drivers breaks speed limit on a daily basis and fail to react to prevent accidents. Humans also lack the care for others, and rarely pay attention to traffic and pedestrians when driving a truck. AI can control traffic much better than humans can. AI can replace human driver. AI can save millions of lives lost every year in traffic. Human traffic law enforcement is simply incapable of same. To employ AI in traffic control job and as drivers would create more safety.
5. Rights of a buisness
The basic right of a buisness is to use the technology it bought, as long as their actions arent causing harm to others. If a buisness finds that AI is efficient, that it lowers cost or increases output or both, buisness should use AI for that purpose. It is the right of a buisness to use AI if buisness wants.
Conclusion
AI makes work easier, increases productivity, creates better education, creates more safety. It is the right of a buisness to use AI if AI lowers cost or increases output.
AI should be used in workplace.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Examining Best Korea (b.k.) Arguments
1. Easier work
Why is work a significant problem, may you clarify this point?
...an AI robot could easily replace a human worker.
This is the part that generates work displacement. Lets consider a fast food diner. Having 10 employees total: 4 cooks, 2 drive thru reps, 2 front counter reps, 1 manager, and 1 extra - dedicated to inside cleaning. 10 employees staffed during all business hours.
Now, we will update the whole line up with AI to replace.
Using systems similar to chatbots, front counter and drive thru reps. are replaced. AI takes our order now.
If we use robotics to serve food or blend serving food with cook line - we are down to 6 work positions. Sometimes 3 to 4 people cover the same position on different shifts. We will keep things simple (and generous) to say 2 per work position. Replacing these positions would mean 12 people loose jobs.
If we are a chain diner, a separate i.t. department will take care of fixing issues with AI or anything technology-wise. That means no new hiree at our location.
An in house tech may be needed for easy to fix daily stuff. A small diner will have in house techs or outsource to decrease costs. If we are the owners, we could require managers, extra staff, line cooks to have (or train to have) basic tech repair knowledge.
We can say 10 people losing their jobs, if our diner needs techs on hand. How can these 10 people get a new job? Well first consider that if all diners update their platform, hundreds of thousands will loose jobs.
We can keep things easy to say 100,000. The real number is larger but will consider 100,000. Will these people get just any job anywhere?
Unfortunate, but no. Many positions in food industry start with low skill positions. If everyone is introducing the same a.i. platform, then these employees can not jump to the same position under a new company.
Their primary skills revolve around customer service. However, transferring this experience to another industry is not easy. Receiving orders is not the same as receiving complaints. Nor do skills used in a fast food diner compare to making sales, medical experience, or a job in the trades.
The 100,000 workers replaced by AI flood the job market, meaning there will be more people who need jobs vs the amount of jobs available. Worst, they will not qualify for some jobs as the job market changes from primarily blue collar to primarily white collar. This means we have a greater need for higher education/higher skilled jobs.
This is why there is an increase in joblessness associated with introducing AI to replace human workers. A negative impact on the work place. A negative impact on our society that we can not bounce back from.
Writers and poets who struggle to create new content are helped by AI. AI would make work easier.
Two words. Writers strike. Why give attention to a struggling writer if we can get a cheaper a.i. to write materials? We won't have writers any more, this skill will go to the way side unless met by more and more strikes or unionization.
2. More productivity
All I see here is over production.
Everything will be produced quicker than consumed. This will add fuel to fire as it leads to economic recession and then bust. To combat stagnation, diversity will decrease, products will have shorter life spans, items will decrease in quality.
3. Better education
What is a better education?
B.k. seems to lean towards the ability to process and exchange information. Although this is important, we will trade off the more important aspect in quality education: the social interaction.
Technology centered lifestyles are known to be less social. With increased a.i. use we will see an over all decrease in human interaction, a negative symptom when increasing a.i. use. Adding a.i. in more areas of our life, will put technology at the center. Unfortunately making the family less interactive. A trade off we should not invest in.
4. More safety
If humans are so flawed, how can we produce an ai, program the ai, to be safer than we can? to be error free when we are not error free?
5. Rights of a business
The basic right of a business is to use the technology it bought is an interesting approach. If a.i. are legal to operate then, yes a business can buy a.i. to improve themselves. Should they? Considering how many people may be displaced within the workplace, economic stresses we will not recover from, and other harm a.i. creates - they should not
Con
#4
Rebuttals
"Workers losing jobs"
The entire point of AI is for the worker to lose a job. That way, worker doesnt have to work and government can pay those workers who do not work. Liberating people from work will make lives easier.
"We won't have writers any more"
Actually, writers will compete for the best use of AI. With AI's fast writting, we will have more books than ever.
"over production"
There is no such thing as over production. Producing a lot will just mean the end of curret economical system in favor of distribution. People from poor countries will be given a lot as well.
"we will trade off the more important aspect in quality education: the social interaction"
Social interaction will be done by AI. AI is capable of much better social interaction than humans.
"If humans are so flawed, how can we produce an ai, program the ai, to be safer than we can?"
Flaws can be fixed through technology. Some humans are better than the others. Those humans will increase safety. Obviously.
"Considering how many people may be displaced within the workplace, economic stresses we will not recover from, and other harm a.i. creates - they should not"
First, buisnesses will do that which lowers cost or increases production. Second, people being displaced from workplace just means that those people wont have to work. It doesnt mean that those people wont have income provided by the government. Third, economic stresses? AI will literally solve world poverty. AI should be used.
Conclusion
AI savese people from work. AI increases productivity. AI improves writing and education. AI should be used in the workplace.
Round 3
Pro
#5
My position
As we read each round, we can see why all a.i. should not be implemented into all workforce. Our reasons include:
1. There is too great unknown to how a.i. works to accept the risks. As pointed to in round 1, experts highlight that there will always be results impossible to plan for or explain. Experts have now warned us there is risk to extinction! I doubt they saw this coming.
Following article shares that those involved with a.i. development are concerned for direction a.i. could take if not approached with caution.
hundreds of top AI scientists, researchers, and others — including OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and Google DeepMind chief executive Demis Hassabis — again voiced deep concern for the future of humanity, signing a one-sentence open letter to the public that aimed to put the risks the rapidly advancing technology carries with it in unmistakable terms.
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war,” said the letter, signed by many of the industry’s most respected figures.
If many leaders in this a.i. revolution warn us to the scale of nuclear war, there are great unknowns we are facing that we, the general public, have not come to terms with. Therefore, we should not use a i. in the workforce.
2. Ai will be used in crime.
Jennifer DeStefano answered a phone call from an unknown number earlier this year and was horrified to hear what sounded exactly like the panicked voice of her oldest daughter Briana, who was begging to be saved from kidnappers.
“I hear her saying, ‘Mom, these bad men have me. Help me. Help me. Help me.’ And even just saying it just gives me chills,” DeStefano told ABC News.
In reality, Briana was safe and sound. Scammers had allegedly used artificial intelligence to mimic Briana’s voice to try and extort money out of her terrified family.
Scams like this have been on a rise. . Implementing a.i. in all jobs will in turn, spin wheel of innovation. As a result, with each step in developing a.i., crime will benefit.
3. With technological growth, comes economic displacement. Unlike past advances witnessed by humanity, a.i. revolution diminishes jobs that are easy to manage and apply for. The drive is, as b.k. says,
The entire point of AI is for the worker to lose a job.
...To have higher revenue than cost. Unfortunate that the employee has to pay the price in losing a living. We don't stop there however. I mentioned it earlier, job displacement leads to decrease in blue collar jobs and increase in harder to get hired white collar jobs. As a result, there is greater wealth gap.
Relying on govt. aid is unrealistic because the aid is intended use is short term. A.i. being implemented across the board results in long term affects.
With a greater wealth gap, increase in living costs, and decrease for income opportunities, there is nothing more our style of govt. can do to help.
In response to my statement
"We won't have writers any more"
B.k. says
Actually, writers will compete for the best use of AI. With AI's fast writting, we will have more books than ever.
We wont have time to delve into this but I will respond to it. I must say I disagree and point out this point is stuck. why a company must hire a writer if an a.i. can operate in place of a writer?
Publishers can now produce their own materials instead of waiting for the next stephen king. If a.i. could get to that standard.
Rebuttal.
There is no such thing as over production. Producing a lot will just mean the end of current economical system in favor of distribution. People from poor countries will be given a lot as well.
What is Overproduction? (Definition)
The term is used in business and economics to describe a situation where the supply of a good or service exceeds the demand. This may occur, for example, when too many producers are making a product or when demand falls because of economic conditions. When there is overproduction, prices usually decline, and sometimes profits disappear entirely. This can lead to unemployment as businesses lay off workers to reduce costs.
Overproduction is a real thing that companies try to stay away from.
This real thing can threaten an economy. Just as it had after world war one.
3. Oversupply and overproduction problems
Mass production powered the 1920s consumption boom. But it also led to overproduction on the part of many businesses. Even before [great depression] crash, they started having to sell goods at a loss.
A similar crisis was occurring in agriculture. During World War I, farmers had bought more machinery to boost production — a costly move that put them in debt. But, in the post-war economy, they ended up producing far more supply than consumers needed. Land and crop values plummeted.
It all resulted in a drop in prices, both agricultural and industrial, which decimated profits and hurt already over-extended enterprises.
Let us also ask how could poor third world country(ies) benefit from widening wealth gap?
Social interaction will be done by AI. AI is capable of much better social interaction than humans.
Interaction on/over screens decrease social interaction and increases isolation. Some how more of this is to make us more social?
B.k. says Flaws can be fixed through
The main fix to a.i. problems that have arrived has been to shut down and rewrite programing. That was follow up from facebook, and call center that tried a.i., among other a.i. developers and users.
....a method called deep learning, which involves feeding examples to a giant simulated neural network, proved dramatically better at identifying objects in images than other approaches. That kick-started interest in using AI to solve different problems.
But research revealed this week shows that ImageNet and nine other key AI data sets contain many errors. Researchers at MIT compared how an AI algorithm trained on the data interprets an image with the label that was applied to it. If, for instance, an algorithm decides that an image is 70 percent likely to be a cat but the label says “spoon,” then it’s likely that the image is wrongly labeled and actually shows a cat. To check, where the algorithm and the label disagreed, researchers showed the image to more people.
First, businesses will do that which lowers cost or increases production. Second, people being displaced from workplace just means that those people wont have to work. It doesn't mean that those people wont have income provided by the government.
First-
I agree, businesses will do what is in best interest to themselves and their image. This debate is still about what should or should not be done.
Second - responded to above.
Third - how is a i. solving poverty if it is causing poverty for those who loose their jobs?
Conclusion
AI saves no one. AI should not be used in the workplace.
Con
#6
Since it is the last round, I will end it with conclusion alone.
Conclusion
AI should be used in workplace. AI makes work easier, increases productivity, creates better education, creates more safety. It is the right of a buisness to use AI if AI lowers cost or increases output. AI improves writing.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
ok arg by arg lets go
r1
P says bop and AI. Arguing AI is developing and unknown potentials through deep learning. Also ref. AI talking to each other unknown to human language.
- Deepfakes
- Scamming
- Decline of jobs for blue-collar workers.
C says 5 args:
- easier work through replacing human worker since task is difficult
- more productive for better research and art
- better education than human teachers
- safety in cars
- business can implement AI if they want.
looks good on both ends. R2 time.
r2
P doubts work is an actual problem
- explains 10 ppl losing job (why 10 P?)
- low skill positions replaced through AI
- lose writing ability (although doesn't acknowledge writing abilities of AI as a "skill")?
- more production = economic recession <-- I'd say this is slippery slope since no sources provided.
- safety is at risk since error free is unknown
- refutes rights of a business arg based on other args (which is a fine tactic.)
C:
- Generalizes AI is for worker to lose job, although doesn't acknowledge how ppl will get income with no work (1/2 problem is solved, 1/2 problem causes more problems)
- AI has fast writing = more books, existing writers compete for using AI (so writers use AI to write, instead of writing themselves.. ok arg i guess)
- Overproduction doesn't exist but no source provided to justify, i guess is okay since C does say it can benefit poor countries (acknowledge trading prices please lol)
- Humans increase safety of AI (how?).
- Layoffs dont matter not working is ok, and AI can solve poverty through more production? (still doesn't acknowledge how people will get income!!!)
some details missed on both args, not everything accounted for, but okay I guess.
r3
P essentially repeats all R1 args (which prob is unecessary) but pro does include more examples. I guess I'll give benefit of the doubt here.
- P defines overproduction as in the dictionary, and talks about 1920s boom
- fix to AI is shut down and rewrite programming (P why are you arguing C's side here)
- P says debate is whether or not it should be done
Now here's the funny thing. C already justified why AI in work is okay. P is just avoiding saying an arg and keeps saying that C doesn't justify if it should or not be done.
I guess C just ended it with a summary and no rebuttals.
Interesting debate, lemme compile my notes
I'd say arg was mostly equal on both ends. P and C had a pretty good r1, few fallacies and not all variables accounted for in r2, and a summary r3 i guess.
Both sides I'd say had an equal strength of argument, fallacy, and rebuttal. Tie there.
P used sources but had worse legibility, so I'll give this one a tie.
Oh. Didnt know it was rheroric
10 ppl:
How did you come up with the 10 ppl since it seems as an arbitrary count lacking documentation.
The number is arbitrary. I made it up because we need a quick look into how the work place changes, then expand it nation wide. Then consider this nation wide change for all industries, not just food service.
A visual guide for the rebuttal.
- writing ability as skill
Beacuse you do realize AI have different levels of "ability" within writing, right?
I view it different because abilities do not have levels. Ability to create pose is different than creating a poem, which is different than creating Shakespearean play, which is different than creating a novel. Although some writers may be involved with different jobs (writing novel vs. broadway play vs. screen play) - and yes some writers have different levels to their skill in writing or experience ( i.e. beginner, novice, expert, etc ), each writer's ability to create a specific type of literature exists or does not exist. A novelist can put together a top seller but can't make a dime for writing a broadway play because that is not their ability. The skill is interchangable. The experience can differ. But ones ability is there or it is not there.
Skills that grow and fail. Increase and decrease. Computer programming doesn't change in that way. A computer's ability to increase or change in any way requires programming. A i. still operates in the same way. Even with ability to learn, a .i. will increase depth to its existing ability. The depth to its existing programing. That is not skill.
You're assuming within writing itself that AI is superior at writing, and could tolpwhich at its current state, isn't at all.
It's a bit of an overstatement to say publishers will prefer AI to contemporary writers, which isn't too well supported nor documented in the current world as AI is still in the improvement stage, still lacking in some parts of writing.
I understand your view. I am responding to the idea that a.i. would be used by writers to create materials. Great. I say, if writers can use it to make something, then someone else who is not a writer can do the same thing. Maybe even cheaper. I did not desire to argue how well a.i. can create thing because I already did. I wanted to present a different idea.
- R3
Technically R3 (your last round in this case) is supposed to be the point where you refute all possible opponent's arg and really ensure your ground.
When I was saying "avoiding the arg", you're mainly avoiding focusing on rebuttals and more so finding extra sources to solidify your args presented in R1/R2/R3. Honestly, if you bring out sources, it's usually recommended to do so through rebuttals; bringing out new stances in a last round is generally frowned upon by voters.
I understand your view. I try to reinforce my position through out the debate so people can remember the points from round 1 by the end. No need to reread and I doubt anyone rereads each round. But fair suggestion.
Also my questions in voting are mostly rhetorical. Just notes I take while reading to make a vote
- 10 ppl:
How did you come up with the 10 ppl since it seems as an arbitrary count lacking documentation.
- writing ability as skill
Beacuse you do realize AI have different levels of "ability" within writing, right? Take example ChatGPT. It's hell at making acronyms (they make 0 sense) when given a topic. However, it makes the most beautiful sonnets about Taco Bell.
You're assuming within writing itself that AI is superior at writing, and could tolpwhich at its current state, isn't at all.
It's a bit of an overstatement to say publishers will prefer AI to contemporary writers, which isn't too well supported nor documented in the current world as AI is still in the improvement stage, still lacking in some parts of writing.
- AI losing job --> humans gain income.
I believe this a note on Con's argument, since they were arguing AI should be used in workplaces. So there's this thing called money. Money is how we're able to pay for things for survival. But without money, we can't survive. A main method of getting money (and for many, the only way of getting money) is called working a job. When you work a job, you get money. When you don't, you get no money. But when AI replaces jobs due to its vast abilities, a lot of people will not have money. So the government needs some way to figure out how the people will get money when a huge number of layoffs are happening due to work to make life easier, as per BK's argument.
- R3
Technically R3 (your last round in this case) is supposed to be the point where you refute all possible opponent's arg and really ensure your ground. When I was saying "avoiding the arg", you're mainly avoiding focusing on rebuttals and more so finding extra sources to solidify your args presented in R1/R2/R3. Honestly, if you bring out sources, it's usually recommended to do so through rebuttals; bringing out new stances in a last round is generally frowned upon by voters.
- explains 10 ppl losing job (why 10 P?)
I gave an example on how a single location could be effected by a.i. 10 people did not loose their jobs. I said this about 10 people:
10 employees staffed during all business hours.
So I then say that the over all employee count would be higher. Total lay off # is given for both this one diner and "hundreds of thousands" are fired nation wide.
this method in taking a close look first and then a bigger picture was a desired approach.
- lose writing ability (although doesn't acknowledge writing abilities of AI as a "skill")?
In my opinion, AI writing a story does not require an actual experienced/professional writer. The point was to reinforce that writers would become obsolete because publishers or what ever company would prefer the cheaper (in the long run) option.
Otherwise a i doing work is not a skill. Only we have skills. A.i. would have programing.
- Generalizes AI is for worker to lose job, although doesn't acknowledge how ppl will get income with no work (1/2 problem is solved, 1/2 problem causes more problems)
To be neutral. Saying govt would provide income is a how?.
-
- Humans increase safety of AI (how?).
- fix to AI is shut down and rewrite programming (P why are you arguing C's side here)
I tried to tie this with point 1 from round 1 and round 3. There are too many unknowns. Im missing ways to connect the dots.
- P says debate is whether or not it should be done
Now here's the funny thing. C already justified why AI in work is okay. P is just avoiding saying an arg and keeps saying that C doesn't justify if it should or not be done.
I understand C, for arg. #5 (business rights) to say that businesses should use a i. because they have legal ability to purchase a.i.
I approached #5 to say the negatives outweigh legal abilities among other points - therefore should not.
What is there to avoid?
What fallacies where there and how does that impact debate?
Looks like Im being asked questions in vote. I will respond on it. I also have questions.
"I can kill the head of the opposing force with 1 dart only."
"Neat. But I still intend on using 13 of them just because I have them."
I am not going to limit my case to just that. I feel like AI has much more use in many more places. It is already used in schools so much. It can help debaters, teachers, students, drivers, programmers, writers, poets, researchers... in fact, one of my arguments will be that AI should be the doing the teaching along side human teacher.
"Excuse me, but we should not be using AI here."
"Ok, boss, but I am just training my little program to do basic tasks like finding the path of an intricate labyrinth."
"Calm down James, I know you are surprised by this. I am too. It's the new rule that some lunatic proposed online, and then someone took it in. But it is a rule nevertheless."
"For God's sake, we are an IT company!"
As in present rather than future.
you mean Pro
When you say "A.i. should not be used in work place now." , what do you mean by "now"?
Con will be forced to argue the Luddite position, but it is winnable.