You're probably right. But if it was converted into a chatbot, it could remember things through categories and withdraw the memories and make new ones and replace old ones. Mitsuku did this back in the early 10s but with simpler things. Now the technology exists for extensive memory banks of this sort of topical memory.
They found Qanon through Twitter posts from two different people. If that is possible then so is finding out which people on here are using GPT-3, lol.
Ya know, funnily enough I had conceived of the idea for GPT-3 about 10 years ago. But my "brain" was going to be Google. Whenever you asked it a question outside of a small script for pleasantries, it would search google and give the first paragraph or two of the answer as the reply. So, in essence, you would be debating or discussing topics with Google Search. I wanted to get it off the ground, but none of my programmer friends wanted to quote me on the price.
I figured there would be no need for a script because the chatbot would simply be replying with article paragraphs.
GPT-3 is basically just that idea but with paraphrasing.
From what I understand that is how it is running. There's some programming like where to find certain links and other manual information they put in, but they use GPT-3 with a sort of database where answers are found and then let the program do the work.
There's chatbot companies that already use GPT-3 as their base, such as MobileMonkey. The industry standard is GPT-3.
If you were really open to it, you would have challenged Barney by now and asked him to pick a topic and asked whiteflame if he would like to be a judge. But since you did neither, you aren't really open to the idea.
I think the only way to settle this if for the two of you to debate another topic and you have whiteflame as the judicial vote.
That way it will be completely fair. Whiteflame votes because he is the one moderating the votes to this debate so he is the most knowledgeable on how to vote properly, and that way it is a completely fair debate to both of you. If Barney wins, he is a better debater than you. If you win, then you are a better debater than Barney.
The topic can also be chosen completely at random. There's websites that do that sort of thing. Or a third party could choose the topic for both of you.
I don't want to report your vote because it isn't like you did anything that I think seriously violates the voting policy rules. But I do want to ask Whiteflame and SupaDudz if, since the other person forfeited more than the required amount, if I should have also been awarded the conduct vote as well since it counts as a full forfeiture.
You could've won it! Your next move could have been disputing CON's sources and reminding him that digital books can be downloaded at coffee shops and internet cafes and stored indefinitely that way.
You also could have talked about how books are a fire hazard and they fade over time, barely lasting past 200 years, whereas digital books can be preserved for thousands. And many book readers are waterproof and shock proof to prevent harm to users.
You had a decent shot! Even from an argument from history. You could argue that digital books are the new stone tablets, but simply much more portable and available to anyone regardless of internet connection. There are some that can be charged via solar panels too.
Naw. It means there's no good evidence they're a narcissist. They could still be a narcissist. Your conclusion only works if there is evidence they aren't one in addition to no good evidence they are one.
But I think we both agree that Biden probably isn't a narcissist.
I'd be willing to debate you on if Biden is a narcissist. I'd want to take the negative position, that he isn't. But this debate would likely have to take place sometime two weeks from now. I am currently in two and work full time lol
But the far more interesting debate is if Trump has schizophrenia.ive actually seen people make an argument for this.
You have a point, but even people close to Trump have described his actions and they align with narcissism. I think how he conducts his public image is in line with how a narcissist would.
But that said I do not think Trump is an evil guy. He knew Epstein but when Epstein tried to recruit st his club he threw him out and severed all ties with Epstein. He also never went to Epstein Island despite being offered multiple times, and none of Epstein's confirmed victims cound name Trump as a sexual abuser.
Moreover Trump has a history of helping black people and Jewish people who were marginalized in his day.
This doesn't mean Trump is a saint. After all, he did cheat on multiple women. But as to the rape allegations, I think only one of them holds any truly credible testimony to it, and at best it is Trump vs. the woman. I am just saying I don't think he is nearly as depraved as many other people in Washington.
It would be a fun exercise to debate if Biden is narcissistic. I personally do not think he is. I also don't think he has ASPD. You may be right that he has traits of it, though. But I am unconvinced. Some people in politics are not part of the dark triad or Machiavellian. While I do not like Biden, that doesn't mean I think he is a psychopath.
Trump is definitely a narcissist though. This much is true. But being a narcissist doesn't immediately mean they are malignant. I really don't think Trump is malignant. But he is still a narcissist.
They're only outside the nature unless the source clearly has definitions for the words in question. And, in this case, DART has definitions for good debater. The leaderboard and Hall of Fame. So you have boxed yourself in by your own description. This isn't my fault as the Voter. It is yours as the person who set up the debate.
You could have said "dictionary.com shall supply all definitions" in your description, but you didn't. This is why, if you look at my debates that I set up, I ALWAYS include a dictionary, and I do my best to choose a dictionary that is reputable for whatever the debate field is. You could have done this, but you didn't. This isn't my fault. It is yours.
Calling me a dumbass doesn't change the fact that you stupidly created a debate that you set yourself up to lose. And then you ignored your own debate rules to win your debate. It isn't the voter's fault that you flagrantly disregarded your own description. It is yours.
Just now in your response comment you once again stated you went OUTSIDE of the website. This violated your own description. You have admitted this twice. So you are, at this point, just proving my analysis correct.
I can read just fine. You also stated, within that block quote you just put:
"the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use..."
In other words: "even though the description limits the analysis to just DebateArt, I am going to impose outside standards I didn't lay out in the description."
That is a blatant admission that you are using special pleading. You are asking people to ignore your own debate description and instead redefine the standards of good based on criteria your own description disallowed.
Once again, it isn't my fault as the Voter that you decided to ignore your own rules.
You can address things however you'd like, but your description explicitly stated "we only consider DebateArt."
If you wanted to include other criterion, then you should have put it in the description or phrased it differently. It isn't the voter's fault you ignored the rules you set up for your own debate.
Well, I can't think of any reason spiderman and flash are different if you ignore details and powers. Might as well debate any two items with that gross oversimplification lol
When this one ends will one of you vote on it so I don't get an automatic tie. My opponent has so far failed to respond to my round one post. If he doesn't respond in the final round it is essentially a clean sweep, and currently it also is a clean sweep, so the vote should be extremely easy and not take up too much time. I just don't want to lose a debate where my opponent forfeited it.
It doesn't matter what I think, the Wisconsin Constitution was clear. Thanks for your vote!
I am reporting, though, because you did not explain how I broke every rule before CON did, and also decided to vote without applying the rules in the description. I feel this is not a proper way to debate since we were both held to the same rules that we agreed to.
Put another way, FDR was a fascist socialist, and Calvin Coolidge was a small government capitalist. That is often the paradigm. The WEF is not anything remotely close to true right-wing, neither is the current Republican Party in America, despite its founding.
You're probably right. But if it was converted into a chatbot, it could remember things through categories and withdraw the memories and make new ones and replace old ones. Mitsuku did this back in the early 10s but with simpler things. Now the technology exists for extensive memory banks of this sort of topical memory.
They found Qanon through Twitter posts from two different people. If that is possible then so is finding out which people on here are using GPT-3, lol.
Ya know, funnily enough I had conceived of the idea for GPT-3 about 10 years ago. But my "brain" was going to be Google. Whenever you asked it a question outside of a small script for pleasantries, it would search google and give the first paragraph or two of the answer as the reply. So, in essence, you would be debating or discussing topics with Google Search. I wanted to get it off the ground, but none of my programmer friends wanted to quote me on the price.
I figured there would be no need for a script because the chatbot would simply be replying with article paragraphs.
GPT-3 is basically just that idea but with paraphrasing.
If the AI wins I'm gonna throw my phone out the window lol
From what I understand that is how it is running. There's some programming like where to find certain links and other manual information they put in, but they use GPT-3 with a sort of database where answers are found and then let the program do the work.
There's chatbot companies that already use GPT-3 as their base, such as MobileMonkey. The industry standard is GPT-3.
Well I had thought most chatbots use the GPT framework now, since it is the most advanced AI for english.
Thank you!
FWIW, I switched sides when Mall pointed out that I was defaulted as PRO. That was a mistake that I rectified with my first statement.
I don't think CON is going to respond.
"I am open to this idea."
If you were really open to it, you would have challenged Barney by now and asked him to pick a topic and asked whiteflame if he would like to be a judge. But since you did neither, you aren't really open to the idea.
"I GARUNTEE that barney will not debate me in a propper contest, we know that his little 37-0 and too precious."
In other words: I'm open to the idea because I know I won't actually have to do it.
Take your time. I know this one is really long.
Oof. Barney you gonna take that?
This is gonna be interesting. We can analyze other people on here and see how similar they are to GPT-3 this way and flesh out the bots.
So... You guys gonna debate or what? Because it sounds like Vici is backing out of proving her(him?)self.
I think the only way to settle this if for the two of you to debate another topic and you have whiteflame as the judicial vote.
That way it will be completely fair. Whiteflame votes because he is the one moderating the votes to this debate so he is the most knowledgeable on how to vote properly, and that way it is a completely fair debate to both of you. If Barney wins, he is a better debater than you. If you win, then you are a better debater than Barney.
The topic can also be chosen completely at random. There's websites that do that sort of thing. Or a third party could choose the topic for both of you.
Round 2 sources:
[1] https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-daca-recipients-are-there-united-states/
[2] https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/immigration/general-immigration/legal-rights-of-illegal-immigrants.html
[3] https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-51
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I apologize, Ilikepie5. It appears I was wrong about the rules on this one.
I don't want to report your vote because it isn't like you did anything that I think seriously violates the voting policy rules. But I do want to ask Whiteflame and SupaDudz if, since the other person forfeited more than the required amount, if I should have also been awarded the conduct vote as well since it counts as a full forfeiture.
Watch CON make an argument right now at the last round.
Out of curiosity, how did someone who didn't say anything get tied for conduct?
You could've won it! Your next move could have been disputing CON's sources and reminding him that digital books can be downloaded at coffee shops and internet cafes and stored indefinitely that way.
You also could have talked about how books are a fire hazard and they fade over time, barely lasting past 200 years, whereas digital books can be preserved for thousands. And many book readers are waterproof and shock proof to prevent harm to users.
You had a decent shot! Even from an argument from history. You could argue that digital books are the new stone tablets, but simply much more portable and available to anyone regardless of internet connection. There are some that can be charged via solar panels too.
I think you gave up too early!
But that being said, I prefer paper books haha.
Naw. It means there's no good evidence they're a narcissist. They could still be a narcissist. Your conclusion only works if there is evidence they aren't one in addition to no good evidence they are one.
But I think we both agree that Biden probably isn't a narcissist.
Sorry I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying it's possible he is one but unlikely.
I'd be willing to debate you on if Biden is a narcissist. I'd want to take the negative position, that he isn't. But this debate would likely have to take place sometime two weeks from now. I am currently in two and work full time lol
But the far more interesting debate is if Trump has schizophrenia.ive actually seen people make an argument for this.
You have a point, but even people close to Trump have described his actions and they align with narcissism. I think how he conducts his public image is in line with how a narcissist would.
But that said I do not think Trump is an evil guy. He knew Epstein but when Epstein tried to recruit st his club he threw him out and severed all ties with Epstein. He also never went to Epstein Island despite being offered multiple times, and none of Epstein's confirmed victims cound name Trump as a sexual abuser.
Moreover Trump has a history of helping black people and Jewish people who were marginalized in his day.
This doesn't mean Trump is a saint. After all, he did cheat on multiple women. But as to the rape allegations, I think only one of them holds any truly credible testimony to it, and at best it is Trump vs. the woman. I am just saying I don't think he is nearly as depraved as many other people in Washington.
It would be a fun exercise to debate if Biden is narcissistic. I personally do not think he is. I also don't think he has ASPD. You may be right that he has traits of it, though. But I am unconvinced. Some people in politics are not part of the dark triad or Machiavellian. While I do not like Biden, that doesn't mean I think he is a psychopath.
Trump is definitely a narcissist though. This much is true. But being a narcissist doesn't immediately mean they are malignant. I really don't think Trump is malignant. But he is still a narcissist.
ROUND 1 SOURCES:
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944385798/poll-just-a-quarter-of-republicans-accept-election-outcome
[2] https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/30/shock-poll-majorities-still-believe-debunked-fake-news-about-trump-and-russia/
[3] https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections
[4] https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/americans-are-academically-ill-equipped-defend-the-constitution
[5] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/12/immigrants-and-children-of-immigrants-make-up-at-least-14-of-the-117th-congress/
[6] https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/participating-in-the-american-dream-how-naturalized-immigrants-are-voting-and-running-for-office/
[7] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2020/02/20/immigrants-are-far-more-engaged-in-politics-than-what-you-may-expect/
[8] https://www.azmirror.com/blog/new-voter-bloc-of-naturalized-citizens-might-swing-arizona-midterms/
[9] https://econofact.org/are-immigrants-more-likely-to-commit-crimes
[10] https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/02/26/naturalized-citizens-make-up-record-one-in-ten-u-s-eligible-voters-in-2020/
[11] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/immigrants-outperform-native-born-americans-two-key-measures-financial-success-n1020291
[12] https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-recognize-american-greatness-immigrants#methodology-and-data
[13] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/06/the-day-i-became-a-us-citizen-proud-grateful-and-hopeful
[14] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/12/31/became-american-citizen-and-im-proud-country-column/4012403001/
So we finally get to have our debate.
I just realized this is posted under "economics"
The topic is:
RESOLVED: Kenny G Is Worse Than Charlie Parker
You're PRO. I'm CON.
BOP is shared.
PRO argues Kenny G IS worse than Charlie Parker.
CON argues Kenny G is BETTER than Charlie Parker.
Definitions:
Worse: having less saxophone playing ability.
Gosh you don't even have to do the debating, someone else decided to do it for you!
This is a very interesting round one. It will be great to see how these arguments take shape.
Thanks for voting!
No problem. It was a very interesting debate to read.
Thanks!
They're only outside the nature unless the source clearly has definitions for the words in question. And, in this case, DART has definitions for good debater. The leaderboard and Hall of Fame. So you have boxed yourself in by your own description. This isn't my fault as the Voter. It is yours as the person who set up the debate.
You could have said "dictionary.com shall supply all definitions" in your description, but you didn't. This is why, if you look at my debates that I set up, I ALWAYS include a dictionary, and I do my best to choose a dictionary that is reputable for whatever the debate field is. You could have done this, but you didn't. This isn't my fault. It is yours.
Calling me a dumbass doesn't change the fact that you stupidly created a debate that you set yourself up to lose. And then you ignored your own debate rules to win your debate. It isn't the voter's fault that you flagrantly disregarded your own description. It is yours.
Just now in your response comment you once again stated you went OUTSIDE of the website. This violated your own description. You have admitted this twice. So you are, at this point, just proving my analysis correct.
I can read just fine. You also stated, within that block quote you just put:
"the criterias for being a good speaker/debater is outside of what medium they use..."
In other words: "even though the description limits the analysis to just DebateArt, I am going to impose outside standards I didn't lay out in the description."
That is a blatant admission that you are using special pleading. You are asking people to ignore your own debate description and instead redefine the standards of good based on criteria your own description disallowed.
Once again, it isn't my fault as the Voter that you decided to ignore your own rules.
You can address things however you'd like, but your description explicitly stated "we only consider DebateArt."
If you wanted to include other criterion, then you should have put it in the description or phrased it differently. It isn't the voter's fault you ignored the rules you set up for your own debate.
Well, I can't think of any reason spiderman and flash are different if you ignore details and powers. Might as well debate any two items with that gross oversimplification lol
Appreciate it!
There is no pagan origin of Superman that I know of. He was originally the communist ubermensch gone evil. Simon and Schuster stated this themselves.
On balance apples are just like oranges if flavor and texture are ignored.
When this one ends will one of you vote on it so I don't get an automatic tie. My opponent has so far failed to respond to my round one post. If he doesn't respond in the final round it is essentially a clean sweep, and currently it also is a clean sweep, so the vote should be extremely easy and not take up too much time. I just don't want to lose a debate where my opponent forfeited it.
Two days left
A win to RM
I really wanna take this one but I will be busy the next couple weeks. I think it could go either way depending on how the arguments take shape.
Idk who this donold Trump character is, but he probably wouldn't win based on his name.
It doesn't matter what I think, the Wisconsin Constitution was clear. Thanks for your vote!
I am reporting, though, because you did not explain how I broke every rule before CON did, and also decided to vote without applying the rules in the description. I feel this is not a proper way to debate since we were both held to the same rules that we agreed to.
If the mods disagree then so be it.
Put another way, FDR was a fascist socialist, and Calvin Coolidge was a small government capitalist. That is often the paradigm. The WEF is not anything remotely close to true right-wing, neither is the current Republican Party in America, despite its founding.