4 ms·

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

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 4y ago
> 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
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- krono 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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.
- Takennickname 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    High chance of permanent global ban as well.
brudgers 4y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate#Competitive_debating
- ke88y 4y ago
  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 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.
hoot 4y ago
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 :/
capableweb 4y ago
Everything besides point 1 sounds like 90% of the arguments you'll get into on the internet, so mission success?
turmeric_root 4y ago
this seems like it might be useful for arguing on HN

surgical_fire 4y ago

> 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

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
krono 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
Takennickname 4y ago
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 4y ago
  High chance of permanent global ban as well.

brudgers 4y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate#Competitive_debating

ke88y 4y ago
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 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.

hoot 4y ago

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 :/

capableweb 4y ago

Everything besides point 1 sounds like 90% of the arguments you'll get into on the internet, so mission success?

turmeric_root 4y ago

this seems like it might be useful for arguing on HN