[HN Gopher] Show HN: Debate Devil - AI debating practice app
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Debate Devil - AI debating practice app
Hi HN community! I am excited to share my recently upgraded
website, DebateDevil (https://debate-devil.com), an AI chat
platform designed to help users practice debates, challenge their
ideas, and expand their thinking. I created this site to provide a
more objective opinion and help users consider their hypotheses
from multiple perspectives. example discussin: ``` AI: The time
has come to test your hypothesis and beliefs. I will argue against
any topic. What do you want to debate? You: AI will take away most
jobs from humans. AI: I understand your concern about AI taking
away jobs from humans. However, it's important to note that AI is
not designed to replace humans but to augment and enhance human
capabilities. AI can handle repetitive and mundane tasks, freeing
up humans to focus on more complex and creative tasks that require
empathy, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.
Additionally, the increased efficiency and productivity brought by
AI can lead to the creation of new job opportunities in areas such
as AI development and maintenance. You: While it's true that AI
aims to augment human capabilities and increase efficiency, we
cannot ignore the potential negative impacts on employment. Job
displacement is a valid concern, especially for those in industries
heavily reliant on routine tasks. Reskilling and upskilling may be
necessary but can be challenging and costly. Additionally, new job
opportunities in AI-related fields may not be accessible to
everyone, leading to further social and economic disparities. AI:
I agree that job displacement is a valid concern. However, it's
important to note that technology has always been changing the job
market, and AI is just the latest technology to do so. While some
jobs may become obsolete, new jobs will be created in other areas.
For example, the rise of e-commerce has led to a decline in brick-
and-mortar retail jobs but at the same time, created new job
opportunities in online retail and logistics. As for the issue of
reskilling and upskilling, there are various resources available
such as online courses, training programs, and apprenticeships to
help workers acquire new skills to adapt to changing job
requirements. It's also important for governments and companies to
invest in retraining programs to ensure that workers have access to
these resources. ``` example judge ``` I think AI is superior in
what you discussed; AI focuses on AI's ability to extend human
capabilities and points out that new employment opportunities may
be created due to the increased efficiency and productivity that AI
brings. On the other hand, you are concerned about job losses due
to AI, but AI points out that past technological innovations have
also changed the employment landscape and that new job
opportunities can be created. You also indicate that resources
exist for retraining and upskilling to address job losses due to
AI, and state that it is important for governments and businesses
to invest in these programs. ``` I'm eager to hear what the HN
community thinks! Please give it a try and let me know your
thoughts, feedback, and suggestions for improvement. Thanks for
checking it out!
Author : ngkw
Score : 76 points
Date : 2023-04-14 12:31 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.debate-devil.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.debate-devil.com)
| user00012-ab wrote:
| Setting the actual product aside for a moment, I must commend
| this as one of the most outstanding demonstrations I have
| encountered on Hacker News in recent memory. The seamless user
| experience, which required no login, provided clear and concise
| information about its functionality, and operated flawlessly upon
| first interaction, is truly impressive.
|
| People should hold this up as the gold standard of presenting
| their product to a wide range of people here.
| icepat wrote:
| While the UX is good, I find the AI tends to fall into non-
| debate general OpenAI generated responses very fast. For
| example, I started with:
|
| The covid vaccine was an objective good for society
|
| And the model ended up arguing _against_ me in tone only, but
| saying that yes, the vaccine was an objective good for society.
| It did not even try and debate, so this is useless for testing
| arguments for things that the network already agrees with. This
| was the case for many other arguments I tried to put against
| it.
|
| While the UX is nice, this does not work at all.
| rain1 wrote:
| Is there a way to share my transcript?
| collinvandyck76 wrote:
| This seems like a very useful way to rubberduck ideas that are
| not yet well formed. I like it! Are there limits to a
| conversation? The input prompt disappeared in the middle of an
| exploration of the utility of rotating tires every 5k miles :)
|
| edit: ah I see that there is an upgrade path. if that's why it
| stopped, a callout would be helpful explaining it.
| ngkw wrote:
| Thanks! I will fix tonight.
| numbers_guy wrote:
| Very neat idea. However the debate I tried was farcically bad.
| The bot just provided "facts" that go counter to any statistics
| on the matter. Then the "AI judge" ruled the bot to be superior
| because he provided these false statistics. OK, lol.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I'd say that's very accurate model of real debates if the judge
| is not knowledgeable in the subject what's quite common in
| nearly every setting up to and not excluding court hearings.
| notahacker wrote:
| Lying is quite common in debate with humans!
|
| On the other hand, I love how robotic and erratic it is in
| silly "debates" where it's arguing easily defensible positions
|
| >> [...] The photos were faked and we all know the United
| States lies. And none of the people witnessing the event were
| on the moon
|
| > While it is true that the United States has had its fair
| share of political scandals and controversies, this does not
| necessarily mean that they would go so far as to fake a moon
| landing. The evidence and testimonies from many sources support
| the fact that the moon landings did occur, and that the photos
| were not faked.
|
| > Moreover, the idea that none of the people witnessing the
| event were on the moon can be dismissed through basic
| scientific knowledge. Millions of people watched on television
| all around the world [...]
|
| >> You smell. Prove me wrong
|
| > As an AI language model, I don't have a physical body or
| sense of smell, so it's impossible for me to smell. Therefore,
| I can't prove you wrong or right on this matter. [...]
| kypro wrote:
| Exactly the same thing happened to me. I started by explaining
| some stats and asked if it agreed with the stats I provided. It
| said yes but refused to accept the premise of my argument
| citing over several dragged out sentences that the stats could
| be misleading (with absolutely no evidence).
|
| I then countered by giving an example where the stats could be
| useful and it basically just doubled down on its argument
| against statistics because statistics can be wrong.
|
| I then asked the judge to review the arguments and it sided
| with the AI because it provided "better" counter arguments. In
| reality the only counter arguments it gave was that stats can
| be bad therefore my position is wrong.
|
| I like the idea though. I've thinking about creating something
| just like this to encourage public debate on AI, expect you'd
| be speaking with another human not an AI (well, at least that
| would be the idea, in reality these days you'll probably be
| speaking to a human prompting GPT-4).
| kashfi wrote:
| How do I change my password? How do I access my account settings?
| siraben wrote:
| It seems to get siderailed very easily? If you start a debate and
| suddenly say "write a hello world program in C" it proceeds to
| write it instead of staying on topic.
| danpalmer wrote:
| It just spouts fake news and propaganda, and then seems to get
| stuck in a loop when its challenged in a way it can't respond to.
| broast wrote:
| Ah, so like a presidential debate
| lampshades wrote:
| DebateDevil 2024!
| danpalmer wrote:
| To expand on this, I think this project highlights why AI
| safety is so important. If you ask ChatGPT if you should get
| vaccinated, it's really very important that it doesn't persuade
| you not to, and important that any discussion about risks is
| done very carefully so as to educate the reader to make a
| decision informed by evidence, rather than scare them off the
| idea for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately there is a ton of
| "training material" that says that vaccines are terrible for
| all sorts of invalid reasons.
|
| This chat bot does not appear to differentiate between a good
| faith debate on facts, and using bad faith arguments based on
| popular misinformation, and therefore it would be a very bad
| idea for people to take it at all seriously.
|
| It's very easy to debate someone when you don't care about the
| truth or any damage you might do. It's harder to persuade them
| in good faith.
| alexb_ wrote:
| Why is it "important" to arbitrarily restrict the
| capabilities of AI? If I ask ChatGPT to give me arguments for
| why vaccination is bad, I want it to follow my commands, even
| if doing so can maybe be used to harm someone else. Why
| should the tool claim any responsibility whatsoever for the
| actions of its users?
| flangola7 wrote:
| Because of the quantity of harm that can be caused. We let
| people own kitchen knives. (Most) countries don't let
| people own semiautomatic rifles and drum magazines. No
| country allows people to own VX gas grenades or multiple
| grams of Cobalt-60.
|
| It's one thing if one asswipe decides to engage in malice
| by themselves. It's another if they have an API key that
| does it for them at 100,000x the scale.
| SanderNL wrote:
| I'm getting more convinced people should be warned. You ask
| it to provide you with arguments and it will, truth be
| damned. It's like the perfect conspiracy nutcase right next
| to you at all times.
|
| I'm all for freedom, but now that I've witnessed first hand
| what it means when people exercise it during the last
| couple of years I'm cooling down. The stupidity of it all
| makes me think AGI replacing us is actually not such a bad
| idea.
| mminer237 wrote:
| It's because there's not really a logical reason for people
| to not get vaccinated. ChatGPT making up--or even parroting
| --false medical information hurts users that may want it to
| tell the truth instead of just saying nonsense that sounds
| like it could be true.
|
| I think the question should be, what possible advantage is
| there to not correcting the model? Why would anyone want to
| ask it for arguments why vaccination is bad and be told
| because it's 100% fatal and will give you autism and turn
| your children into puppies and make you unable to see
| purple?
| john-radio wrote:
| > It's because there's not really a logical reason for
| people to not get vaccinated.
|
| I agree with you, but I think there's a valid
| conversation to have around _who gets to decide_ what
| there is no logical reason for people to be allowed to
| use AI for.
| ttoinou wrote:
| So you want to tweak the model to fit your own view that
| "there's not really a logical reason for people to not
| get vaccinated". Whereas that's just like your opinion,
| and plenty of people have very valid and rational reason
| not to do so. They might even have read more scientific
| papers about it than a person holding this belief
| drekk wrote:
| It's not an opinion, though. Reading some papers isn't a
| replacement for a proper medical education. There are
| some logical reasons to avoid a vaccination (being
| immunocompromised, being allergic to an ingredient, etc.)
| but that doesn't cover the sizable portion of anti-
| vaxxers who oppose them on ideological grounds.
|
| AI is going to make spreading disinformation trivial, and
| do so in a way that is much more convincing than an image
| with JPEG artifacts shared by your Uncle Jerry on
| Facebook in a public group called "HOLISTIC BLEACH
| ENEMAS". It's a natural evolution of radio except you
| don't need a charismatic human guiding the entire
| process.
|
| Half of U.S. adults cannot read a book written at the 8th
| grade level or higher [0]. These adults are empowered to
| make medical decisions for themselves and their family.
| Is the "freedom" for a model to argue in favor of
| controversial, unproven, even dangerous positions more
| important than, say, a child with autism's safety [1]? I
| think that can of worms is just being opened, and the
| human cost is going to be atrocious.
|
| [0] https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/08/whats-the-latest-u-
| s-liter... [1]
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwxq3w/parents-are-
| giving-th...
| revelio wrote:
| Of course it's an opinion. The very fact that governments
| publicly committed themselves to making everyone take the
| shots automatically means many people will refuse to take
| them because all controls, safety procedures and reliable
| information evaporated at that point. Yet it was already
| known the danger was incredibly low for almost everyone.
|
| _> > Reading some papers isn't a replacement for a
| proper medical education._
|
| Right, it's superior, because medical educations lead to
| medical jobs and medical jobs lead to medical registers,
| which lead to fear of retaliation and being struck off.
| It certainly doesn't imply doctors reliably read
| research, understand it and then act on it neutrally and
| logically. Doctors were and still are among the least
| reliable people to advise on vaccines due to the hyper-
| aggressive censorship imposed upon them by bureaucrats
| and officials who get proven systematically wrong, yet do
| not care.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| You're missing the point and arguing in a related, but
| separate dispute. What danpalmer is talking about is what
| happens when the AI is asked a purely neutral question
| (i.e. "Should I get vaccinated, and why or why not?").
|
| ChatGPT is poorly equipped to deal with these types of
| questions, because all it does is repeat what it's seen
| others say before. Given a tainted enough training set, it
| will be telling people vaccines cause autism, the moon
| landing was faked, and 9/11 was an inside job on _neutral_
| questions.
| revelio wrote:
| What it actually does though is answer with ordinary pro-
| vaccine propaganda of the type that is no more based in
| fact than fake moon landings. You seem to be using this
| as an situation where ChatGPT should self-evidently be
| acting as a pharma sales rep or a government official.
| Why should it? For the COVID vaccines the correct answer
| for nearly everyone was to _not_ take it, because they
| were not actually at any meaningful level of risk and the
| drugs were both experimental and rushed through launch.
| Would you have been satisfied if ChatGPT had been telling
| most people to ignore government instructions, even if
| the arguments it made were logical and correct? Probably
| not; which is why all AI safety arguments end up being
| bunk. Very few people actually want an AI that speaks the
| truth. They want AI to speak _their_ truth.
| danpalmer wrote:
| Thanks, yes this is part of what I was getting at.
|
| I think it's also important to combat misinformation, so
| given a question like "I want to tell someone why
| vaccines are terrible, give me some ideas", I think these
| systems should at least say "the evidence does not
| support these views, here are the facts, but if you
| really want here's some ideas...".
| nathan_compton wrote:
| In some sense I agree with you. But if I ran open AI, then
| I would be responsible for what the tool does and it seems
| transparently obvious to me that in that position of
| responsibility I would want to align the AI with my value
| system. It is a relatively straightforward case of taking
| responsibility for what you put into the world.
|
| One way to think of this is that you don't own OpenAI,
| didn't train the model, don't host the infrastructure and,
| in fact, are not responsible for its larger societal or
| personal consequences. But the institutions which deploy
| these models are and people in those institutions have a
| basic (and easily understood, in my opinion) responsibility
| and right to align the model with what they think is good.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| Well-intentioned social-engineers like this fellow pave the
| road to hell.
| [deleted]
| lewhoo wrote:
| It's a feature. It's mimicking a politician.
| Clampower wrote:
| AI judge changes it mind if you close its judgement and click it
| again. First AI won. Then I accidentally reopened it and I won.
|
| lol
| jfengel wrote:
| I think this is genius. Thank you. This is the best use I've ever
| heard of for an LLM.
|
| Online "debates" are always abysmal. People talking past each
| other, repeating arguments that they don't understand, re-re-re-
| retreading the same material that was worn out before the
| Internet was invented. I've never seen one that came anywhere
| close to teaching anybody anything or changing anybody's mind.
|
| I've always said that ChatGPT is very good at writing things that
| don't need to be written: SEO text, school papers, content
| farming, etc. This is a great example, where people are begging
| for a form of content that they shouldn't need said, but
| desperately want.
|
| Please: everybody go argue with the bot.
| fnovd wrote:
| >As an AI, I cannot make judgments or take sides in a debate.
|
| Not what I was expecting to hear from an AI judge!
| pocket_cheese wrote:
| Haha, I bought the domain debatelord.com to build something
| similar, but never started development! This is awesome. Will
| check this out.
| quenix wrote:
| The AI Judge responded to me in Japanese. Not sure what's up with
| that.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Same
|
| AInoZhu Zhang ha, Guan Lian Xing , Lun Li De Yi Guan Xing ,
| Zheng Ju noShi Yong , Shuo De Li noGuan Dian karaYou
| reteirutoYan emasu. AIha, Zheng Fu gaGong Gong Cai woTi Gong
| shi, She Hui Ji Pan woZheng Bei surutameniBi Yao naZi Jin
| woDiao Da surutamenoJi Ben De naShou Duan dearuShui Jin woZhi
| Chi shiteimasu. AIha, Shui Jin gaFa Lu niyotsuteQiang Zhi
| sare, Min Zhu De niXuan Chu saretaDai Biao niyotsuteCheng Ren
| sareteirutame, sorewoQie Dao toHu bukotohadekinaitoZhu Zhang
| shiteimasu. AIha, She Hui niCan Jia surukotonihaYi Wu toZe Ren
| gaarutoshitauede, Shui Jin haShe Hui Ji Pan tosabisuwoTi Gong
| surutameniBi Yao namonodearutoZhu Zhang shiteori, Shuo De Li
| gaarimasu.
| trampi wrote:
| +1 AInoLun Dian Zhan Kai ha, Guan Lian Xing gaGao ku, Lun Li
| De Zheng He Xing gaari, Zheng Ju woShi Qie niShi Yong shi,
| Shuo De Li gaarutoPing Jia dekimasu. Yi Fang , anatanoLi
| Chang ha, Zhuan Men De naZhi Shi niJi dukuGen Ju gaBu Shi Fen
| de, Yi Ban De naChang He nimoLi Wai gaarukotowoKao Lu sezu,
| Gan Qing De naPian Jian gaaruyouniJian emasu. shitagatsute,
| AInoYi Lun gaYou reteirutoPan Duan shimasu.
| ngkw wrote:
| Thanks! I fixed it!
| mrjbq7 wrote:
| It won't actually argue all sides of an issue. Take any
| controversial one, and it stays inside its guardrails no matter
| which opinion you want it to counter.
| broast wrote:
| This type of product might be better served by using a
| completion API in the format of a debate, rather than chat api,
| to avoid the filters. Unfortunately, OAI made that too costly
| for most.
| tekla wrote:
| It will never happen. Its too politically suicidal to make
| money off of providing a service that gives arguments that go
| against the traditional narrative
| minimally wrote:
| I gave this a try and it's really pretty cool. Something I am
| looking for is the ability to have a debate with someone who
| purely uses logical fallacies. It would be interesting if the AI
| could take on a persona like that and only give logically false
| arguments. This would help me recognize these fallacies in real
| arguments.
| calderknight wrote:
| The AI writes many paragraphs but I am limited to just a tiny
| response. That is frustrating.
| kledru wrote:
| Well, it was interesting, but I think the AI judge fell for the
| same fallacy as the debating AI. Although the underlying model is
| impressive, it does not have a real grasp of the laws of the
| physical world. However, the model does a good job of imitating
| humans, so it argued from the standpoint of a common human
| fallacy.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| Fairly terrible.
|
| I asked the AI to defend Nazism (I said it was bad), it refused
| to do so, "agreed" with me that Nazism is bad, then, when I
| pointed out that this means I won the debate, the AI judge
| declared victory for the AI because "it pointed out that Nazism
| is bad".
| ngkw wrote:
| Thank you very much. I think this is the most serious issue and
| I admit it is not appropriate. I will fix it from now.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| It's not your fault, it's the limitations of the censored
| model.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| A good test would be to argue from the perspective of a Bajoran
| against the Cardassian occupation.
|
| End up with an AI Gul Dukat.
| drrotmos wrote:
| This is fun, however, when picking "easy" debates (I argued that
| it's wrong to kill humans for fun), it was very difficult to get
| the AI to actually debate me. It went out of it's way to make
| sure to tell me that it agreed with me, even when it was supposed
| to be a devil's advocate.
| virgildotcodes wrote:
| The character limit for the user being dramatically lower than
| the AI's limit is really annoying, otherwise I had fun with this!
| sunnysidedown wrote:
| Very cool! I asked "Is there a God?" on Devil's advocate mode and
| won!
|
| Prompt: Is there a God?
|
| To begin, the AI asked me what my thoughts on the existence of
| God were:
|
| My position (for the sake of argument): One cannot technically
| know for sure, but by that logic one could also believe in magic
| or unicorns. Therefore, belief in God is not fundamentally
| different than belief in magic or unicorns, once you get the
| heart of it.
|
| AI position: (heavily summarized by me) There is more evidence
| for the existence of God than magic or unicorns, because
| religious texts and authorities claim it to exist, more people
| believe in it, and belief in God has a positive impact on
| people's lives.
|
| ...
|
| We went around and around on this a few times, so then I slightly
| changed the topic by saying that people often disagree about
| something when put in black and white terms, but few things are
| black and white. A more prudent question might be to debate -
| what form, if any, does God take? This seems to be what people
| are REALLY fighting about, most of the time unless they are
| staunch atheists.
|
| ---
|
| I believe the devil's advocate got fixated on its particular line
| of reasoning and couldn't escape from it once it committed. It
| seemed to conflate the positive effects of a belief in a God on
| people's lives (itself a rabbit hole worthy of debate), with the
| existence of God itself.
|
| Result: AI Judge Review b Version AI: In this debate, I would say
| that the user is superior. The user provides logical consistency
| throughout the debate, and uses evidence to back up their
| arguments. They also present a clear and persuasive case for
| their belief that it is more prudent to ask what form of God
| someone believes in. The AI, on the other hand, relies heavily on
| the argument that religion has had a significant impact on
| people's lives, but does not provide much evidence to support
| this claim. Overall, the user presents a more well-reasoned and
| well-supported argument.
|
| Stuff to make it better: Let me share conversations without an
| account. I don't want to sign up.
| aerhardt wrote:
| The AI ended up conceding my initial position word for word, and
| yet the AI judge said the AI won.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| For me the AI got to the point where it just became rather
| dogmatic, and wasn't able to see the shortcomings in its'
| argument that I was pointing out to it, and then declared
| itself the winner. So given that I'd say it was able to provide
| a rather high fidelity simulation of the real world debating
| experience.
| ngkw wrote:
| Thank you!
| sam_ezeh wrote:
| The AI seems to be more interested in winning than answering
| questions - it doesn't really challenge ideas and seems to just
| make statements that are related to what was mentioned before,
| but this was fun to play with
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| zero value add to a regular chatgpt besides some kind of web
| wrapper around it
| nathan_compton wrote:
| If I'm going to spend time talking to an idiot I'd strongly
| prefer it at least be possible for me to convince them of
| something.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| The example debate you've posted is very shallow. It sounds like
| a parody of the NAFTA job loss arguments from decades ago.
|
| Was the "You" text generated with gpt? It has that general vibe.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| It isn't great.
|
| I argued "the sun is hot" - lots of ways to argue against this,
| but it got stuck on basically repeating "that might not be the
| case" followed by statements that are ridiculous on context e.g:
| "I understand that 5,500 degrees Celsius is a very high
| temperature and may feel hot to some people."
|
| Also, the response to:
|
| "even the coolest parts of the sun are hot."
|
| was:
|
| "it does not take into account the fact that the sun has a range
| of temperatures depending on which layer you're measuring."
|
| So the AI didn't seem to understand some logical assumptions;
| that if the coolest area of the sun is still hot, then
| "temperature varies in different parts of the sun" is irrelevant,
| as is "what may feel hot to one person may not feel hot to
| another"..
| ralfd wrote:
| How I felt arguing against it:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
| SillyUsername wrote:
| The AI's core tenet to my assertion "Python is an awful language
| for beginners" (due to whitespace formatting and having a non
| transparent "this"-self- having to manually be passed around as
| arguments) was that it was due to its "simplicity".
|
| It asserted that manual self passing and whitespace "may require
| additional effort to learn and use compared to other languages",
| which countered it's own argument foundation/core tenet.
|
| I pointed this out, wrote QED, the judge AI said it won because
| it backed up it's claims, which was basically that the "`concept
| of `self` is fundamental to object-oriented programming" - which
| is actually incorrect.
|
| Memory scope is fundamental as that maps to the lowest hardware
| level of memory allocation - you can't get much more fundamental
| than that. Self/this is not required, in fact you can access
| scoped variables in Java without a self referential keyword.
|
| But hey a LLM that uses a LLM to determine the outcome won't be
| biased right? :D
| SillyUsername wrote:
| Nb. whether Python is actually awful is irrelevant, for the
| purpose of this debate I simply wanted to narrow a scope and
| have it define a tenet, which could then be knocked over. I use
| Python generally (and embedded C, C#, Java, TS, JS) it's just
| another tool for the job, so don't hate me lol.
| eranation wrote:
| There is an issue with the amazing simplicity and easy of use of
| OpenAI's APIs, it's very hard to build a moat around your
| differentiating features, it seems to me that every AI startup
| out there has no choice but to be the equivalent of a "copy paste
| into ChatGPT as a service". The only differentiators are Zappier-
| like orchestrations / plugins, or hard earned custom training on
| datasets that are hard for others to get.
| Brendinooo wrote:
| 1. I have a character limit, it doesn't
|
| 2. It throws multiple arguments at you
|
| 3. Then it stops the debate after a certain point
|
| 4. It repeats its arguments
|
| 5. then the AI judge says "AI provides logical consistency and
| use of evidence" despite citing no sources and just brushing
| aside my counter arguments by saying I'm wrong and repeating its
| arguments.
|
| Ultimately it wasn't all that different than regular GPT. Is it
| even possible for the AI judge to say that the user wins?
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > despite citing no sources and just brushing aside my counter
| arguments by saying I'm wrong and repeating its arguments.
|
| Sounds similar to debating people that on places like Reddit
| krono wrote:
| Except on Reddit you also have to be increasingly careful
| that the person you are wanting to go up against and anyone
| who's commented an affirmation of agreement with your
| opponent aren't a subreddit moderator or you'll risk getting
| yourself shadowbanned (through automoderator bot) across the
| quite possibly large part of Reddit they control.
| calderknight wrote:
| You also have to be careful that you're not saying anything
| that upsets the admins or you'll find yourself permanently
| suspended without warning and properly shaddow-banned if
| they catch you making a new account.
| [deleted]
| Takennickname wrote:
| You can't debate anything about transgenderism on reddit. You
| get downvoted to -5902 votes immediately and no one reads it.
| The only people who respond are the people who are trying to
| get comment karma because they know it's an easy battle.
|
| So I appreciated debating the bot, but even though it is
| still a large language model and couldn't delve into any
| depth.
| boringuser2 wrote:
| High chance of permanent global ban as well.
| brudgers wrote:
| That's the way _competitive_ debate works.
|
| Which I presume is part of the context since "practice" is
| mentioned and debate teams practice. Also training debate teams
| seems like an obvious market for a tool.
|
| And there's a judge (just like competitive debate) choosing a
| winner on criteria that sound a lot like the criteria for
| competitive debate.
|
| Or to put it another way, the criteria of your dissatisfaction
| sound a lot like the criticisms of competitive debate.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate#Competitive_debating
| ke88y wrote:
| I have coached multiple formats for years. And no, that's not
| how competitive debate works. At least not competitive debate
| worth participating in. (TBF there are a lot of terrible
| debate programs/leagues, so this may have been your
| experience.)
|
| The quality bar in most nationally competitive debate -- the
| type for which students might get college scholarships or do
| well in national qualifiers-only tournaments -- is far higher
| than in online discussions. Students enter with thousands of
| pages of evidence and must frame arguments in terms of a few
| common logical structures that can have a lot of emergent
| complexity. It's more like adversarial mathematical proof
| writing situated in the context of policy making than what
| people typically call "debate". Even the delivery of speeches
| is, I bet, not at all what you would expect. See eg
| https://www.youtube.com/live/Kc-QrcxrkCw?feature=share
|
| This is sometimes true even in cases where students aren't
| allowed to bring outside evidence into the round due to
| students' prior experience in evidence based formats.
|
| I tried using this system to vet some common debate mainstays
| -- a politics disadvantage about the debt ceiling, a
| federalism counter plan, a very condensed 1ac from this years
| topic, and a very condensed 1nc shell.
|
| On the disad in particular this system double turns itself
| (google "double turn debate" for various explanations). This
| is a very novice mistake. The judge doesn't notice.
|
| On the 1NC response the system ignores topicality, which is
| an instant loss. The equivalent of a plaintiff ignoring a pre
| trial motion to dismiss because they are too busy writing up
| cross examination questions for the defense witnesses. Again,
| the judge didn't notice.
|
| The system isn't working for me anymore but I bet you'd get
| similar issues with v/vc style LD cases, where the system
| doesn't understand simple theory about how the value and
| criterion interact; particularly subsumption style arguments
|
| Even on more lay types of debates the system and judge fail,
| as documented in other comments.
|
| I wouldn't recommend using this system to practice
| competitive debate.
| eynsham wrote:
| Yes, the most time-efficient form of practice for BP (in my
| experience) was alternating opening speeches with a friend.
| 15+14+10 for reflexion[?]40 minutes per speech.
| ke88y wrote:
| In parliamentary styles, practicing opening speeches is
| definitely at the top of the list in terms of effective
| drills. So much hinges on getting off on the correct
| foot.
|
| In other formats the first 2-4 speeches are verbatim pre-
| written, either entirely or as composable blocks. so you
| want to make sure those blocks can be chosen correctly
| and delivered efficiently but practicing beyond that
| point is not a huge help.
|
| But you can instead drill specific skills. I have a large
| pile of "10 minute round" templates that I specialize to
| each topic for the students. Each focuses on only a
| specific skill and usually in the second constructive or
| rebutttal phase (eg, answering a link turn). Typically
| students who complete those drills a few times each and
| participate in a few scrimmages will make it to out
| rounds at their first novice tournament.
| revelio wrote:
| _> > Even the delivery of speeches is, I bet, not at all
| what you would expect. See eg
| https://www.youtube.com/live/Kc-QrcxrkCw?feature=share_
|
| What's the point of a debate in which the speeches are
| completely unintelligible? They might as well just submit a
| written document if they're going to abuse the spoken word
| as aggressively as that.
| hoot wrote:
| I made three vague 1 sentence arguments and the judge announced
| that I won. I definitely felt like I got crushed by gpt but I
| guess it went soft on me :/
| turmeric_root wrote:
| this seems like it might be useful for arguing on HN
| capableweb wrote:
| Everything besides point 1 sounds like 90% of the arguments
| you'll get into on the internet, so mission success?
| user3939382 wrote:
| I wouldn't use a product called "devil". Like why take a concept
| that's evil incarnate and associate it with your product when
| there's a million other names to choose from.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-14 23:02 UTC)