Moving beyond talking...debating.
Debate Rounds (3)
Autonomous machinery comes with 2 calamitous consequences:
1) higher-thinking technology goes mobile. It's Strong AI in-the-making. Right now it"s a Baby Goliath stage but expected to reach adulthood within the next 20 years"a Mr. Invincible AI done deal stage. Currently though, it's just a matter of what look desktop brains going mobile will get dressed up as: cars, drones, soldiers"human workers.
A) Governments are not the only power entity funding the advancement of strong AI.
B) Fat-cats don't fork up billions in development bucks if not for projected returns. This is why the current techno-stage is called JOB-ELIMINATING TECHNOLOGIES.
2) Technology adapts incredibly fast compared to us so it won't be long before Baby-G is all grow'd up: when Superintelligence comes to pound down our door. David is currently locked in a faceoff with Baby-G yet we continue to act as though we're but mere spectators just hanging out on the sidelines waiting for our government to hand David a deterrent. Humanity can't afford to keep dismissing this human versus machine showdown as little more than Hollywood hype. We must learn to move en-masse quickly, as we are the only partner in the ageless power dance powerful enough to stall these advancements"to give humanity time to adapt.
The fate of the human future, our own kids" future, rests in our hands right now because with technology"prevention is key. WE are that deterrent but our clock"s
a-ticking to nano-time.
Somehow, somewhere, we must learn a new dance step"together. This debate forum, like any forum, must help us move towards DOING"quickly. Otherwise, this debate, like any debate any of you have ever posted or particpated in here, moves us too slowly. http://www.dancingpartners.info... is that somewhere start looking to move us beyond mere debate. Now if you think inserting this URL might be a cheezy stump, you'd be right. However, for this forum, I'm backing my fervent belief up: We must move beyond debate time. I would have posted this elsewhere, but I didn't see that option. What I do see, is a site that has engaged people though and that's a great start. I guess if a post must first get debated here before moving on then just know: if your arguement will be that forums raise awareness then let me help you. Yes"just not fast enough.
Regarding this debate specifically, I do not fully understand the argument. My guess is that the PRO side is arguing for Artificial Intelligence to move beyond the discussion phase and into a debating phase.
My counterargument is that discussing and debating a topic are one and the same and thus this topic is a non-sequitor. I move to win by default.
The PRO side is most likely looking for a "green light" in order to progress his cause that AI become integrated into society. I wish him or her the best in this regard.
I can see your confusion; I did not articulate well. This too, is my first debate on this forum. I am pro; I believe this is the adaptation bounce we are primed for...all we need is to do it. However, here's a tip if you want to argue this. Your best defense might be along the lines of how masses have always moved like sheep. Historically, we follow. Does that help?
I confess, I don't know what the Ageless Dance of Time connotes, so I cannot argue this point.
Also, I do not understand this portion of your argument:
"move beyond talking, arguing, debating and onto unifying to actually effect the direction we are headed BEFORE Superintelligence gets here to completely rule our day."
I don't know about what we are talking, arguing and debating, so I don't know how we would move beyond this step.
I will make a second guess that you are PRO for the position that we move collectively instead of individually in whatever actions we choose to take before AI dominates our lives.
Well, this is very hard to argue one way or another. All I will say is that I'm an advocate for enlightened self-interest, and given that SELF equates to my own person and whatever ownership rights are bestowed upon me by society at large, I will always have differing interests with other people, especially if what they own differs significantly from what I own. Given that each individual differs significantly from other individuals, I cannot advocate that all individuals act in a collective manner for any extended period of time.
Democracies are built upon the inalienable rights of individuals, and totalitarian states are built upon the concept of government ownership of all productive assets, including people. Totalitarian societies would have a much easier time executing what you advocate.
But then you post; "I will make a second guess that you are PRO for the position that we move collectively instead of individually in whatever actions we choose to take before AI dominates our lives."
So, it seems as though you do understand, somewhat at least. However, you argument lies in this; we are a democracy with inalienable rights and therefore a totalitarian existence is what I'm promoting.
Well, I don't agree. A democracy is such: a mass casts their (inalienable right) vote and in turn, their governing body is given clear evidence in what direction the majority would like to head. Aside from the fact this process does not always work as intended, you have overlooked what we are -- first, before a governed body of whatever flavor dictates directional steering. We are a communal species. Directional steering fomented from any mass has never comes easily. History books burst at the seams with this near guarantee: masses don't move en-masse until eminent danger nips at their heals regardless of what dominating governing system is in place. Referred to as a revolt or revolution, this is actually our power 'amassed'. Now, my question for debate was: do you think this communal species has evolved yet to a place where we can ensure the direction we are lead is what we want without eminent danger nipping at our heals or not?
1) My opponent has stated that " it seems as though [CON does] understand, somewhat at least."
Unfortunately this is not true. I am making wild guesses as to what exactly PRO's argument entails. I have yet to receive a definitive statement that I can understand from PRO that would comprise PRO's argument.
I don't have a counterargument to PRO's argument, but merely a counterargument to MY GUESS as to what PRO's argument MIGHT be.
2) My opponent stated that "[CON's] argument lies in this; we are a democracy with inalienable rights and therefore a totalitarian existence is what I'm promoting."
This is not true. My counterargument to MY GUESS as to what PRO's argument is is that " Given that each individual differs significantly from other individuals, I cannot advocate that all individuals act in a collective manner for any extended period of time."
I stated that "Totalitarian societies would have a much easier time executing what you advocate," not that "totalitarian existence is what [PRO is] promoting." This is not even an argument relevant to the discussion. At least, I don't think it is, because I still do not know about what we are discussing.
Later on, PRO asks "do you think this communal species has evolved yet to a place where we can ensure the direction we are lead is what we want without eminent danger nipping at our heals or not?". I will assume this is the main argument, and that PRO has taken a positive position on this issue. Fair enough, although it is a little late to state the argument, as this is the final round of the debate. It also has zero relevance to the title of this debate.
My CON answer is NO. Eminent danger is irrelevant to how much a species has evolved - indeed, as humanity has evolved through the accumulation of knowledge, we have become not only more dangerous to other species around us, but to ourselves as well. One extremely easy example of this eminent danger caused by our own evolution is the presence of nuclear weapons, and the capacity of nuclear weapons to not only destroy all life on earth, but ourselves as well.
I would rather state that evolution is a primary factor in causing "eminent danger [to] nip at our heals."
I move to win by default because PRO did not have a cohesive argument until the final round. What has comprised the bulk of PRO's response in round #3 is an attempt to argue points I made while conjecturing as to what the main argument MIGHT be.
PRO did eventually state his argument in clear terms at the end of the debate. However, he did not defend his position. Furthermore, his position has nothing to do with the title of this debate, nor does it have any clear relevance to his Round #1 comments, nor his Round #2 comments, nor his Round #3 comments.
I thank fourthdancer for giving me the opportunity to participate in my first debate on this website. I also thank in advance the voters for sympathizing with my confusion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never explicitly defined what the debate resolution was and i sympathise with the con because I never understood what this debate was about either. Since this was just a massive game of "Is this what youre talking about?....." I cant really assign points for who had the best arguments, so Ill just give conduct to the con and leave it at that.............. Since nothing was really debated, I give it 0 out of 4 stars....
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.