Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

OdiousOutlaw wrote

The exact same utility that it had before, to be honest.

That the robit is able to replicate common elements merely means that the robit highlights how cyclical we are as a species; we'll recycle the discourse and drama until our collective end and we'll do that regardless of whether or not the AI exists; technology can attempt (and even succeed) in outmoding many human actions, but I don't think any social or creative aspect will be entirely supplanted (especially not the latter).

The only real value that debate has is either in amusement or advancing understanding on a given topic; common talking points are only common to us because we've seen them before; at that point, it's time to accept that we either understand the topic in its entirety or that we haven't come up with any novel perspective on it and attempt a deeper understanding via whatever other method we can find; the point being, the machine cannot innovate, it cannot create, it can only mimic what it has seen so many times before; so the value that humans generate in debate stems from our ability to dream up new ways of the perceiving, articulating, and/or thinking about topics that have our interest.

Common talking points can only come from common ideologies, common ideas, common arguments; there's significantly less utility in argumentative framework that literally embodies values seen within the status quo. Common arguments are more likely to be heard by people already immersed in a given topic anyway; new people would get more value out of debates because they've seldom, if ever, heard the arguments before.

Finally, let's face it: if someone told me that they understood the nuances of a given topic because they used an artificial intelligence to simulate a debate between two sides of a given issue, I'd call them delusional. I've played with a few AI; in my experience, they're very inconsistent.

6