The problem with AI is that it can make a clear case for either side of an argument. In reality people have a world view that dictates their answers and arguments on any topic. Depending on the training data those arguments may or may not align with any individual.
It was entertaining to read how AI argued both sides credibly. This shows the danger of applying AI to politics. Any argument can be made and can sound both convincing and reasonable. It doesn’t mean it’s effective or right.
Let’s stick to people making these sorts of arguments and be very clear about their world views and biases. Then we can effectively decide who to agree with and who should represent us. Especially given the current political climate.
Thanks for another fascinating demonstration of AI and how it can be used or abused.
What I love about the both sides arguments that the AI did for this article is that they are focused on facts... that is, I didn't read anything about MAGOTS or LIBTARDS in either argument. And, it seems like they both layout their fears on each side of the issue... there's a fairly clear "common ground" in between those fears that could provide the guardrails we need to actually come up with sensible legislation... like gene therapy for serious chronic conditions, but not for designer babies. I'm not sure that humans could get there but I'd really like to see them try.
The problem with AI is that it can make a clear case for either side of an argument. In reality people have a world view that dictates their answers and arguments on any topic. Depending on the training data those arguments may or may not align with any individual.
It was entertaining to read how AI argued both sides credibly. This shows the danger of applying AI to politics. Any argument can be made and can sound both convincing and reasonable. It doesn’t mean it’s effective or right.
Let’s stick to people making these sorts of arguments and be very clear about their world views and biases. Then we can effectively decide who to agree with and who should represent us. Especially given the current political climate.
Thanks for another fascinating demonstration of AI and how it can be used or abused.
What I love about the both sides arguments that the AI did for this article is that they are focused on facts... that is, I didn't read anything about MAGOTS or LIBTARDS in either argument. And, it seems like they both layout their fears on each side of the issue... there's a fairly clear "common ground" in between those fears that could provide the guardrails we need to actually come up with sensible legislation... like gene therapy for serious chronic conditions, but not for designer babies. I'm not sure that humans could get there but I'd really like to see them try.
It starts with both sides having the ability to have a factual and respectful discussion, something that seems rare these days.
Nicely done! I'm thinking we vote AI into political office so that they can really explore the issues in the future.