The Instigator
Zacko
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Computers in charge of the world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 70301
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Zacko

Pro

I believe that the best form of government, which I believe anyone would agree with is a benevolent dictatorship. This is ideal because the person in power is giving and kind. But people become corrupt with power. They lie, steal, and cheat, because they never have enough. A computer cannot be corrupt, it cannot be mean, lie or cheat unless programmed to. A computer programmed with the correct code, made by the best programmers in the world, would be able to solve a problem with many variables, not just an equation with a definite answer. Create this program multiple times, each time changing it so that they each see a different side to the problem/argument, then create a collective, the programs of each computer working with each other to decide on a solution that benefits everyone. But people can still be me corrupt without power. They would try to overthrow the computer collective dictatorship/oligarchy. So there would need to be protectors of the collective oligarchy. The protectors could not be people, because people can become corrupt or persuaded, so you would need an automated protective force. After proposing this, most people would fear that they could malfunction and we couldn't stop them. The solution is someone who can repair it, but not control it. This would happen by not with one person, but with many. Each person would know one block or small section of program, so that no one person knows enough code to change its programming enough to make it do what the person wants it to do. This would prevent the computers from malfunctioning and from their coding being changed. The last problem that I can think of is what if a malfunction can't be fixed. The solution, an off button. All of the programmers would have to vote on this, then requiring at least 2/3 of their authorization codes to top turn it off, but the off button would be permanent, and would destroy all codes, to prevent an analyzation and from being turned back on with the malfunction still there. If I haven't convinced you that this is best for us, please, be my guest and challenge me.
Ozzyhead

Con

We shouldn't make a circuit board and a mother board smarter than humans. If it's not smarter than humans than we don't need a super smart computer to lead our nation or any nation. Creating a smarter computer could let the computer hurt us. Now, maybe it won't try, but from person to person and culture to culture, morality is perceived differently. So someone may be seen by computer that morally conflicts the computers current perception of morality. A computer that adapts, isn't power hungry and is benevolent would be nice. But so would a human monarch. Anything that can be taught right from wrong would do good. I think an uncorruptabale (not a word roll with me) human would be better.
Debate Round No. 1
Zacko

Pro

It wouldn't be smarter, just less single minded. Instead of a group of leader, each wanting the best for THEMSELVES, a conclusion would never be a compromise. Witha group of computers, all wanting the best for EVERYONE, would eventually come to a better conclusion. A computer in charge would take away all singlemindedness(not a word either) from power. If we made a computer smarter that us, it would be able to alter its own programming, and would be able to do anything it wanted. Plus, it would be more one computer. Each culture perceives morallity differently, so there would a computer per culture, or something of the sort. Humans would still be able to vote on how they wanted it programmed, so they wouldn't need to program it themselves. Your last statement "I think and uncorruptable (not a word roll with me) human would be better." Of course it would. They would be able to see emotions and things a computer can't. But as I said before,people can still be corrupted with out power. They would use bribery, blackmail, and sabotage. But a computer is immine to those things. A human is not.
Ozzyhead

Con

I still see a computer failing to control the world. The idea of a perfect computer seems good but it's going to be too expensive to make and maintain. And who would be allowed to maintain them? People? If people can maintain them, then what stops a computer maintenance from opening up the system and reprogramming it to be the way they want it?
My argument can't be long because the things that need to be gotten around are small. A computer needs to be able to adapt to the morals of everyone in the different regions of the world. Hell, they'd have to be able to get around Americans. Conservative and Liberal values clash constantly. It would have to be completely neutral and it would have to be created by an equally neutral computer. How would that happen? Most scientists who would work behind a computer have (American) left wing values. Personally, I am an American left wing, but that would not be fair to those who are not if a left wing created it. Who would create it?
There are too many variables to make a leader out of a computer. The perfect computer would have to be created and maintained by the perfect computer. According to my opponent, there is no human that can't be corrupted so the perfect computer can't be made and maintained.
Debate Round No. 2
Zacko

Pro

Zacko forfeited this round.
Ozzyhead

Con

A smart computer could rule the world but not better than a smart person. If you have a smart ruler they won't be manipulated
Debate Round No. 3
Zacko

Pro

Zacko forfeited this round.
Ozzyhead

Con

Started out strong too
Debate Round No. 4
Zacko

Pro

Zacko forfeited this round.
Ozzyhead

Con

Well it's over
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
There are certain AI researchers who believe that humans are too stupid and selfish to be effective leaders or politicians and think that all politicians should be replaced by sufficiently intelligent computers. I don't know how many of them have expressed this opinion in public, so I'm not going to name names right now...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ZackoOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture