AI vs. human debate

Author: Tejretics ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 8
  • Tejretics
    Tejretics avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 322
    1
    3
    8
    Tejretics avatar
    Tejretics

  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,553
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    Very cool!

    I will however point to the bias of the setup. The human had a potential 79 points to gain, of which he gained 17. The machine had only a potential 21 points to gain.
  • Smithereens
    Smithereens avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 499
    2
    1
    4
    Smithereens avatar
    Smithereens
    --> @Ragnar
    The side which is more compelling should theoretically never have less people agreeing with it after the debate than before. 

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    @Smithereens

    The side which is more compelling can be the side debated worse. This is because people can be utter idiots and also because a genius debater vs a terrible debate can't convince you that something like morality is objective since that's utter bollocks but may win the debate hands down and deserve no loss of points for taking a blatantly false side and murking his opponent in spite of it.
  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,553
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @Smithereens
    I assume that theory depends upon a perfect audience to grade it, and more compelling being objective instead of subjective?

    The thing I really wish we knew, was if indeed the winner lost any of their original believers.
  • Smithereens
    Smithereens avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 499
    2
    1
    4
    Smithereens avatar
    Smithereens
    --> @Ragnar
    I think it strikes a good compromise between using an unqualified set of judges and having a meaningful judgement. I've actually never considered using an aggregate statistic for before/after positions in an audience to judge a debate. That way they don't have to explain to the audience how to judge a debate, they can just find out who was more persuasive overall. But yes I agree it's a far from perfect system and there's a few nuances that I'd like to know too. 
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,446
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @Smithereens
    I think it strikes a good compromise between using an unqualified set of judges and having a meaningful judgement. I've actually never considered using an aggregate statistic for before/after positions in an audience to judge a debate. That way they don't have to explain to the audience how to judge a debate, they can just find out who was more persuasive overall. But yes I agree it's a far from perfect system and there's a few nuances that I'd like to know too. 
    Intelligence Squared debates use this method and get played on the radio. [LINK]

    And sometimes on television. [LINK]
  • Tejretics
    Tejretics avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 322
    1
    3
    8
    Tejretics avatar
    Tejretics
    --> @Ragnar
    I think this setup is flawed for other reasons, but net gain is gains - losses; in other words, not losing people, for the purposes of this set up, is counted as a gain. So both sides had a potential 100 points to gain, for all intents and purposes.