A.i. should not be used in work place now.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- 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
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.
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.