"The judges are looking solely for argumentation in this portion and are instructed to penalize weak arguments even if the opposition does not point them out."
Fun fact: Swablu weighs 2.6 lbs and is capable of learning Fly through HM. Assuming the average 11 year old weighs 70 lbs, then Swablu can comfortably fly MILES with 29x its own body weight on its back.
There might be a smaller Pokemon that knows Fly, I didn't check every single Flying type entry.
According to Google there are 924 different pokemon (I have no clue if this includes mega evolutions and other new BS). That translates to an average of 1.082 MILLION lions per Pokemon.
If they're wild Pokemon, no shot. Trained high level pokemon with a well-stocked trainer behind them who can coordinate heals, etc., maybe.
The U.S. justice system doesn't deal in justice almost at all, by your definition.
If I was punched in the face and broke my nose, then took the offender to court, it would take probably at least two months in my experience before I got an actual court date. By then, my nose has already healed. So any action from then on isn't about alleviating the suffering caused by my broken nose, but about punishment and culpability. I might be able to be awarded damages in a civil suit, but the expense of a lawyer would most likely make it not worth my time. Regardless if I take them to court, however, they could still be tried in a criminal case for battery, most likely in a state court. In this case, it wouldn't be Mr. Puncher vs. Mr. Punched, but Mr. Puncher vs. the State.
" I believe my A3 in round 1 should have shown why I think good exists (or can metaphysically exist) without evil necessarily existing, even with an omnipotent God."
A2 says the opposite though. Anyways the possibility of good without evil was one of Con's arguments as well, but they pointed out that the world we live in clearly DOES have evil.
Sounds like that is an issue that should be addressed, perhaps by not posting late votes until they have been reviewed by mods? It would be more intensive on mod hours, but I can't think of a better way, other than a waiting period between votes closing and the winner being announced when votes can still be reported and removed.
My experience has been that troll votes get removed the majority of the time. I also don't consider Barney to be a troll, so not sure why you think we would agree.
Is novice's restriction on voters valid? Generally speaking rules in the description apply to the debating parties, and Barney is for sure eligible to vote, I'm not sure what Shila and FLRW's current status in that regard is, but surely this type of restriction is unfair. Imagine if I made a debate where the description said only 1 person of my choosing could vote, this would clearly violate the spirit of DArt's voting system.
As stated in the description, this debate was intended to be unrated. As for future precedent, no arguments have been put forth so far, which I think is a reasonable cutoff for editing a debate without both parties' consent.
I didn't say that AI was better than humans at art, only that they are capable of it. No one has beaten a real chess computer at chess since 2005, so I definitely give them the win on that one. The thing is is that people keep saying that there will never be "human level performance" at x task, but human level is widely variable. DALL-E is definitely better at art than I am, even if they can't beat real artists.
" And we can upgrade it by simply exercising it, whereas computers are limited by their current hardware."
Human brains are limited by many factors, including having to run a whole body at all times, in addition to cerebral tasks. A very narrow simple task, like chess, is better suited to computer hardware than biological hardware. And hardware continues to improve at a much faster rate than human brains. Then there's software, which is arguably the area with the largest room for improvement. I expect that by 2030 most "human" tasks will be able to be performed by AIs at or above average human capability.
I do agree that we can learn from each other and improve as a result.
If that is possible it would be appreciated. The description already states my intention on the matter, I just forgot to mark it when I created the debate.
Free chatbot apps are very different from actual AIs like LaMDA and what GPT-4 will be. If GPT-3 wins this debate, then they will be better at debating than you.
"Al cant win in a debate vs. human. ... Debate isnt chess"
People said the same thing about chess 30 years ago. Then they said, "well, an AI could never beat a human at Go." Then AlphaGo beat the human Go champion Lee Sedol in 2016. Similar arguments have been said a dozen times. AI can't create art, followed by DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. AI can't drive a car, followed by Tesla.
GPT-3 isn't the solution to AI in debate, but it IS coming.
"GPT-3 is basically just that idea but with paraphrasing."
It's definitely more technically complicated than that, but yeah. Hopefully I'll be able to generate something a little more argumentative than an article summary.
Don't know enough about the Qanon thing to say if it's comparable. Identifying GPT-3 in the wild is definitely possible, especially if you had an AI on your side analyzing word usage.
Novice can write very clearly, which should actually help GPT stay on track. My prediction is that GPT will have trouble remembering what it believes vs. what Con believes.
Sounds interesting. Even so, GPT-3 is versatile enough that you couldn't identify it just from its writing style. It does have specific weak spots you could probe, if you're familiar enough.
It takes a LOOOOT of data crunching to train an AI like GPT-3. Very few companies outside of Google could afford to replicate it. I haven't looked into it myself, but if there are chatbots mimicking GPT-3, then they are probably using GPT-3 itself on the back end, with some kind of API tool to facilitate the chat interactions.
I've just been frustrated by people who are unwilling to even check if their question is easily answerable online. You're just the most recent in a long line of people in real life and online that have annoyed me this way. It was intended more as advice, but I got a little snippy. I'm sorry.
"translate that into 200 languages over the next 2500 years. People will believe it then you think?"
To be fair it's only been like 4 or so to modern translations iirc, it just exists in hundreds of languages now
For New Testament: Aramaic/Hebrew/(Greek for the Apocrypha?) -> Greek -> Latin -> English.
Also, "orosadmi"? This isn't even an attempt at a pun. oromadgi (read oro mad guy) would be the bare minimum of cleverness, and I came up with that in about 15 seconds. If you're going to give people insulting nicknames, you could at least put some effort into it.
"see how he is refusing to accept defending something as trivial as rights for African Americans? You know why? because it says no kritik, which is orosadmi's only tool he has. once I take it away, its like taking away a toy from a child - he is a useless sob. its all on display now - the "best" debater on the site unable to defeat someone on whether slavery is good."
Or, like most people, he doesn't feel compelled to accept every challenge that comes his way. There are several people who if they called me out to debate I would not accept, such as Type1 when he was around.
As RM says, your description never states that oromagi and no one else can accept. In fact, based on your wording, none of the rules apply to MariaG.
"EVERYTHING in this description is accepted upon acceptance by oromagi"
Since the condition of acceptance by oromagi has not been met, MariaG has no obligation to accept the terms of the description. I hope that they do come back to the debate for this reason alone.
Your "small kritik" was the only argument that addressed Barney's, and since Barney's argument satisfied BoP on its own, only arguments that countered it are worth considering.
Not sure why whiteflame would say that.
"Under Open Voting any member eligible to vote, may do so freely within the voting period"
This was the only line I could find restricting who can vote, with "eligible" being defined by meeting the following:
"Complete at least two rated debates which are eligible for moderation, each containing no more than a single forfeiture, using the open voting system (as opposed to judicial selection).
OR
Make 100 non-spam forum posts.
"
"all of my subsequent debates will have rules that bar certain people from voting. These rules will be purposed towards preventing the expressions of incompetent people from influencing the outcomes. Some examples of people who I would as a general rule note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi, FLRW, Shila, etc. all of which are trolls who lack understanding of basic logic."
You can't stop people from voting on your debates. Even if you put in the description "no Barney votes" or something, they will still be able to, and so long as they uphold the Voting Policy, will not be removed even if you report it.
"ther may be voters who are not willing to do anything that may introduce the risk of upsetting them because that is clearly one of the worst things that could happen. "
What exactly do you think would happen if Barney or Oromagi got upset?
"The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote."
Whiteflame has already passed judgment on the argument portion and found it acceptable.
People continue to say stuff like this about every "noob sniper" or whatever you want to call this. If you win, then it's not cheating, it's technique. The alternative is RM, who pours a massive amount of effort into the site and has a huge quantity of debates. Neither strategy is particularly indicative of argumentative skill so much as it is exploitation of the Elo system, and while I personally respect RM's method more, I wouldn't call him the "best" debater on the site.
One should not be *forced* to be submissive (unless they're into that ;P)
If this is intended to be a criticism of feminism trying to overthrow the stereotype of the submissive housewife, then it is fallacious. No/few feminists are advocating that no women should be submissive ever, only that they should be able to be as submissive or dominant as they want.
"The judges are looking solely for argumentation in this portion and are instructed to penalize weak arguments even if the opposition does not point them out."
I have problems with this specifically.
Well that's certainly not a great start.
Fun fact: Swablu weighs 2.6 lbs and is capable of learning Fly through HM. Assuming the average 11 year old weighs 70 lbs, then Swablu can comfortably fly MILES with 29x its own body weight on its back.
There might be a smaller Pokemon that knows Fly, I didn't check every single Flying type entry.
"He [Kyogre] could just fly on rayquaza"
lol Kyogre weighs almost twice as much as Rayquaza.
According to Google there are 924 different pokemon (I have no clue if this includes mega evolutions and other new BS). That translates to an average of 1.082 MILLION lions per Pokemon.
If they're wild Pokemon, no shot. Trained high level pokemon with a well-stocked trainer behind them who can coordinate heals, etc., maybe.
The U.S. justice system doesn't deal in justice almost at all, by your definition.
If I was punched in the face and broke my nose, then took the offender to court, it would take probably at least two months in my experience before I got an actual court date. By then, my nose has already healed. So any action from then on isn't about alleviating the suffering caused by my broken nose, but about punishment and culpability. I might be able to be awarded damages in a civil suit, but the expense of a lawyer would most likely make it not worth my time. Regardless if I take them to court, however, they could still be tried in a criminal case for battery, most likely in a state court. In this case, it wouldn't be Mr. Puncher vs. Mr. Punched, but Mr. Puncher vs. the State.
I ran into a similar thing, yeah. I'll be playing with the temperature and penalty sliders in the following rounds to see if that helps.
Is there a way for a mod to forfeit the round since Ehyeh is banned?
The DREAM Act doesn't actually award a green card, so it didn't follow for me.
" I believe my A3 in round 1 should have shown why I think good exists (or can metaphysically exist) without evil necessarily existing, even with an omnipotent God."
A2 says the opposite though. Anyways the possibility of good without evil was one of Con's arguments as well, but they pointed out that the world we live in clearly DOES have evil.
I wish you had elaborated on these alternatives to natural-born citizenship in the debate, would have cleared things up better.
Sounds like that is an issue that should be addressed, perhaps by not posting late votes until they have been reviewed by mods? It would be more intensive on mod hours, but I can't think of a better way, other than a waiting period between votes closing and the winner being announced when votes can still be reported and removed.
Because anyone who trolls often enough to make your blacklist should just be banned in general by moderation.
My experience has been that troll votes get removed the majority of the time. I also don't consider Barney to be a troll, so not sure why you think we would agree.
Is novice's restriction on voters valid? Generally speaking rules in the description apply to the debating parties, and Barney is for sure eligible to vote, I'm not sure what Shila and FLRW's current status in that regard is, but surely this type of restriction is unfair. Imagine if I made a debate where the description said only 1 person of my choosing could vote, this would clearly violate the spirit of DArt's voting system.
I can already freely edit or even delete a debate before it is accepted, so I see no conflict there.
As stated in the description, this debate was intended to be unrated. As for future precedent, no arguments have been put forth so far, which I think is a reasonable cutoff for editing a debate without both parties' consent.
I would be interested to see wills and testaments brought up somehow.
The case of power of attorney for brain dead would also be interesting.
I didn't say that AI was better than humans at art, only that they are capable of it. No one has beaten a real chess computer at chess since 2005, so I definitely give them the win on that one. The thing is is that people keep saying that there will never be "human level performance" at x task, but human level is widely variable. DALL-E is definitely better at art than I am, even if they can't beat real artists.
" And we can upgrade it by simply exercising it, whereas computers are limited by their current hardware."
Human brains are limited by many factors, including having to run a whole body at all times, in addition to cerebral tasks. A very narrow simple task, like chess, is better suited to computer hardware than biological hardware. And hardware continues to improve at a much faster rate than human brains. Then there's software, which is arguably the area with the largest room for improvement. I expect that by 2030 most "human" tasks will be able to be performed by AIs at or above average human capability.
I do agree that we can learn from each other and improve as a result.
Of course they use internet. Your phone doesn't have the memory to run a GPT-3 level AI.
Just sit back and watch the debate. You can make a judgment after on its ability.
If that is possible it would be appreciated. The description already states my intention on the matter, I just forgot to mark it when I created the debate.
Free chatbot apps are very different from actual AIs like LaMDA and what GPT-4 will be. If GPT-3 wins this debate, then they will be better at debating than you.
"Al cant win in a debate vs. human. ... Debate isnt chess"
People said the same thing about chess 30 years ago. Then they said, "well, an AI could never beat a human at Go." Then AlphaGo beat the human Go champion Lee Sedol in 2016. Similar arguments have been said a dozen times. AI can't create art, followed by DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. AI can't drive a car, followed by Tesla.
GPT-3 isn't the solution to AI in debate, but it IS coming.
And it's fun to see what it can do.
"GPT-3 is basically just that idea but with paraphrasing."
It's definitely more technically complicated than that, but yeah. Hopefully I'll be able to generate something a little more argumentative than an article summary.
Don't know enough about the Qanon thing to say if it's comparable. Identifying GPT-3 in the wild is definitely possible, especially if you had an AI on your side analyzing word usage.
Novice can write very clearly, which should actually help GPT stay on track. My prediction is that GPT will have trouble remembering what it believes vs. what Con believes.
Sounds interesting. Even so, GPT-3 is versatile enough that you couldn't identify it just from its writing style. It does have specific weak spots you could probe, if you're familiar enough.
whoops, forgot to make it unrated. Oh well.
It takes a LOOOOT of data crunching to train an AI like GPT-3. Very few companies outside of Google could afford to replicate it. I haven't looked into it myself, but if there are chatbots mimicking GPT-3, then they are probably using GPT-3 itself on the back end, with some kind of API tool to facilitate the chat interactions.
"We can analyze other people on here and see how similar they are to GPT-3 this way and flesh out the bots."
Unlikely. There are plenty of chat bots around, and most of them behave very differently than GPT-3.
I've just been frustrated by people who are unwilling to even check if their question is easily answerable online. You're just the most recent in a long line of people in real life and online that have annoyed me this way. It was intended more as advice, but I got a little snippy. I'm sorry.
11/4 sounds good to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3
or you could always use a search engine. It IS the 21st century.
"translate that into 200 languages over the next 2500 years. People will believe it then you think?"
To be fair it's only been like 4 or so to modern translations iirc, it just exists in hundreds of languages now
For New Testament: Aramaic/Hebrew/(Greek for the Apocrypha?) -> Greek -> Latin -> English.
your
Would cross examination take place in the comments or a new tab?
I will make another debate for you if you're still interested.
Also, "orosadmi"? This isn't even an attempt at a pun. oromadgi (read oro mad guy) would be the bare minimum of cleverness, and I came up with that in about 15 seconds. If you're going to give people insulting nicknames, you could at least put some effort into it.
"see how he is refusing to accept defending something as trivial as rights for African Americans? You know why? because it says no kritik, which is orosadmi's only tool he has. once I take it away, its like taking away a toy from a child - he is a useless sob. its all on display now - the "best" debater on the site unable to defeat someone on whether slavery is good."
Or, like most people, he doesn't feel compelled to accept every challenge that comes his way. There are several people who if they called me out to debate I would not accept, such as Type1 when he was around.
As RM says, your description never states that oromagi and no one else can accept. In fact, based on your wording, none of the rules apply to MariaG.
"EVERYTHING in this description is accepted upon acceptance by oromagi"
Since the condition of acceptance by oromagi has not been met, MariaG has no obligation to accept the terms of the description. I hope that they do come back to the debate for this reason alone.
That was my intention :)
Mall is a confusing person.
Your "small kritik" was the only argument that addressed Barney's, and since Barney's argument satisfied BoP on its own, only arguments that countered it are worth considering.
This had the potential to be some liar's paradox shit.
Not sure why whiteflame would say that.
"Under Open Voting any member eligible to vote, may do so freely within the voting period"
This was the only line I could find restricting who can vote, with "eligible" being defined by meeting the following:
"Complete at least two rated debates which are eligible for moderation, each containing no more than a single forfeiture, using the open voting system (as opposed to judicial selection).
OR
Make 100 non-spam forum posts.
"
"all of my subsequent debates will have rules that bar certain people from voting. These rules will be purposed towards preventing the expressions of incompetent people from influencing the outcomes. Some examples of people who I would as a general rule note to ban from voting are Barney, Oromagi, FLRW, Shila, etc. all of which are trolls who lack understanding of basic logic."
You can't stop people from voting on your debates. Even if you put in the description "no Barney votes" or something, they will still be able to, and so long as they uphold the Voting Policy, will not be removed even if you report it.
"ther may be voters who are not willing to do anything that may introduce the risk of upsetting them because that is clearly one of the worst things that could happen. "
What exactly do you think would happen if Barney or Oromagi got upset?
"The voter does sufficiently analyze arguments insofar as he covers points presented by both debaters and considers their context with regards to the description. The voter is not required to cover all points made by the debaters, particularly when they set a standard for evaluating those points that applies more broadly to other points. This appears to be the case with this vote."
Whiteflame has already passed judgment on the argument portion and found it acceptable.
People continue to say stuff like this about every "noob sniper" or whatever you want to call this. If you win, then it's not cheating, it's technique. The alternative is RM, who pours a massive amount of effort into the site and has a huge quantity of debates. Neither strategy is particularly indicative of argumentative skill so much as it is exploitation of the Elo system, and while I personally respect RM's method more, I wouldn't call him the "best" debater on the site.
One should not be *forced* to be submissive (unless they're into that ;P)
If this is intended to be a criticism of feminism trying to overthrow the stereotype of the submissive housewife, then it is fallacious. No/few feminists are advocating that no women should be submissive ever, only that they should be able to be as submissive or dominant as they want.