Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Debate Con Case

Ben Yang
- BLAH BLAH INTRO STUFF
- Resolution: The benefits of using AI outweigh the harms
Definitions:

Artificial intelligence is defined as Artificial Narrow, General, and Super intelligence

ANI specializes in a certain area e.g. Google’s Assistant

AGI reaches human-level intelligence

ASI achieves a level of intelligence smarter than all of humanity combined

From two part essay AI Revolution by Tim Urban of wait but why that features surveys from the
AGI-09 and 11 convention and research from top experts within the field such as Nick Bostrom
and Vincent C Muller

Framework: Artificial Intelligence will continue to be researched and developed in the future
thus impacts regarding the future are an essential part within this debate. Experts and established
news publications should be the sources that matter within this debate as companies work for
their own interest and would naturally be biased on the topic of AI.

Contention 1: ANI

Claim 1: Artificial intelligence speeds up automation

EV+W: Cybrink reports that AI speeds up automation through “revolutionizing mass-

production.” ANI is the main contributor of current automation as it is capable of “doing
repetitive tasks, streamlining the production model, increasing capacity, eliminating human error,
and having higher quality assurance.” ANI itself is also form of automation which does all the
aforementioned tasks. The US’s 2016 federal report states that “accelerating AI capabilities will
enable automation of tasks that have long required human labor”. This leads to my second claim.

Claim 2: Automation has and will continue to cause job loss

Evidence:

1
 Tuesday, October 10, 2017
ANI is already speeding up automation which, according to McKinsey analysts results in
millions of job losses across more than 800 occupations from manufacturing to food service to
retail.

CNN reports that a study done by professors at BSU conclude that automation has caused 87%
of manufacturing job losses.

A US federal report released to Obama in 20 in 2016 explains that AI also threatens up to 47%
of jobs in the next two decades.

Business Insider reports that 60% of jobs in metropolitan cities will be lost as well.

Warrant: These jobs lost are all due to companies that see automation as a one time invest that
will pay off in the end. Companies choose AI as it is a lot more cheaper while doing more work.

Impact:

Locally, there will be an tremendous increase in the unemployed as low to medium-skilled

workers find themselves unable to keep up with higher job requirements. Nationally,
unemployment rates and wage inequality rise more and more as Globally, millions of people end
up unemployed and unable to provide a living to themselves and their family. This effect is
amplified as AGI and ASI develop and replace jobs at higher and higher levels which leads to
my….

Contention 2: AGI/ASI

Use initial thing but only go deep when they ask

Claim 1: Artificial General Intelligence will develop and be implemented soon

Evidence: According to a survey of experts done by Seth Baum, Ted and Ben Goertzel at the
AGI-2011 conference, 68.3% of experts state that AGI will be effectively implemented in the
next 32 years and only 1.7% of experts believed AGi to never be implemented. Another survey
conducted in 2013 by Vincent Müller and Nick Bostrom that surveyed hundreds of experts
Shows that the Median realistic year for AGI is 2040.

Warrant: With our current technological process, it is evident that we are extremely close to
AGI. Facebook’s recent AI that developed their own language to communicate is a prime
example of just how close we are. Companies will implement AI as labor is pretty much free and
the workers (AI) work 24/7 and at a much higher efficiency.

Claim 2: Artificial General Intelligence results in Artificial Super Intelligence

2
 Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Evidence: According to the aforementioned 2013 survey there is, experts state that there is a
75% likelihood that we will transition from AGI to ASI within 30 years. This means that ASI
will likely be created in 2060.

Warrant: AGI contains something that us humans lack: the ability to easily reprogram and/or
make a new and better version of itself. They are essentially able to evolve much more quickly
than us. Which is why it would only take 30 years to reach ASI.

Claim 3/Impact: AGI/ASI Results in extinction

AGI/ASI will always end up harming humans

Ev + W: Look at nature. Us humans as smarter beings think of those that are less
intelligent as sources of food or entertainment. How do we know that AI won’t treat us
in a similar manner. They will eventually come to the conclusion that humans are just
unnecessary consumers of resources and wipe us out.

Claim 3b: They will inadvertently harm humans even if not malevolent

Ev + W: The paper clip example detailed by Nick Bostrom from the University of
Oxford in his book Superintelligence “imagine a machine that we might call a ‘paper-
clip maximizer’ which is a machine that is programmed to make as many paper clips as
possible. If this machine were to become incredibly intelligent. It could create new, more
efficient paper clip making machines until it has converted everything to paper clips.

*Note to C* Should I add some stuff/swap this section out for autonomous weapons
here?

Impacts: AGI/ASI results in the complete extinction of the human race. Our world gets taken
over by AGI/ASI as they deem us unnecessary and useless or even end up killing us without any
malevolent intent. Judge we are talking about the potential extinction about the entire human
race here thus we urge a con ballot.

3
 Tuesday, October 10, 2017

EXTRA STUFF

Evidence against AI = no need to work:

A 15-hour work week. That's what influential economist John Maynard Keynes prophesied in
his famous 1930 essay "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," forecasting that in the
next century technology would make us so productive we wouldn't know what to do with all our
free time.

This is not the future Keynes imagined.

Many higher income workers put in 50 or more hours per week, according to an
NPR/Harvard/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation poll. Meanwhile, lower-income workers are
fighting to get enough hours to pay the bills, as shown in a University of Washington report on
Seattle's $15 minimum wage publicized this week.

Yet some of today's best minds are making Keynes-like predictions. This month, Apple co-
founder Steve Wozniak said robots will one day replace us — but we needn't worry for a
few hundred years.

In May, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Harvard's 2017 class that increased automation
would strip us not only of our jobs but also of our sense of purpose.

BC of skill gap shorten and explain better

Against jobs created by AI

4
 Tuesday, October 10, 2017

"The problem is people are losing jobs and we're not

doing a good job of getting them the skills and
knowledge they need to work for the new jobs," Bessen
said. (economist/researcher at Boston University)
Ppl that lose manufacturing job can’t work in silicon value
bc of skill gap etc. elaborate more
Stories where automation resulted in disruption

Joel Mokyr, Chris Vickers, and Nicolas L. Ziebarth’s The History of Technological Anxiety and
the Future of Economic Growth: Is This Time Different? SORT THRU & PICK OUT

ME VS. CLAUD

C: AI creates a lot of high standard jobs -> ppl get fired and starve

Washing machines -> what will women do -> what will humans do

Ppl surveyed a lot of ppl created more jobs WHAT TYPE OF JOBS

AI creates jobs

Don’t assume AI will take away job

Economy ^, Higher living standard

They say: AI creates jobs

But: misinterpreted

Because: jobs created are at different skill gaps. Ai is replacing jobs in the food industry, and
many low-income jobs

Feedback: JOB ≠ Person

5
 Tuesday, October 10, 2017
If a company loses a job then that doesn’t mean that that person (who used to have the job)
doesn’t have a job

Jobs CHANGE they don’t = ppl

Care about UNEMPLOYMENT RATES / NET JOB LOSS

10 mil get jobs while 1 mil lose

CHRIS vs. WILLIAM

Claim 1: Curing cancer weeeeeeeee

Ppl don’t have cancer blah blah blah blah

Huffington post blah blah life saved

Waaaaa data processing waaaa sugoiiiiii

Cancer rebuttal->

Lessen/minimize it

e.g. detecting it doesn’t cure it -> yay you can detect an incurable cancer EVERYONE DIES
FROM IT

Compare impacts/too expensive

Rebuttal Practice:

C: AI also allows us to adress previously impossible problems

EV: self driving cars, able to make correct decisions. Traffic speeds go up. BBC’s AI more data
(smart meter). Find patterns & make predictions

The future is optimistic. Safer etc. etc. etc.

Minimizes demand of energy increasing energy efficiency

SUMMARY PRACTICE:

- taking first 25 mins of db8 and compacting it down

- Diff w/ final focus -> crystallization -> comparing claims and warrants

- Final focus -> compare impacts & weighing

- Main Questions:

6
 Tuesday, October 10, 2017
- START WITH THESE QUESTIONS EVeRYTIME

- Which contentions have come up more

- If spent long time on a Contention -> then it’s important at least bring up

- Which have the most significant impacts

- Summ is leading into final focus think of it as two parts of a 4 minute point

- Which ones did they drop

- Why is this drop significant

- Not just they drop so we win the point but so and so lives won’t be saved be specific
19 mil lives aren’t saved etc. etc.

e.g. nuke example

Side A: Buildup of weapons

Side B: NK no nukes thus no worries, small country, can’t get (can’t buy)

CANNOT GO THRU all of the small reasons -> thus figure out overarching idea

In this example: NK will have non thus in response -> even though they have none, other
countries get them more problems

Nuke lost example:

Assumption -> lost thus terrorists get it

IN SUMM

U kinda have to reset urself

SUMM ≠ another rebuttal PUT ALL together AND SUMMARIZE

Maybe 3 contentions in a debate wanna find the groups e.g. cont 1 and cont 3 together

GROUP SHIT TOGETHER

Practice:

7
 Tuesday, October 10, 2017
In this debate there is two major conflicting points. Firstly whether a national min wage will or
will not benefit the poor. The oppositions third contention and rebuttals try to point out that a
national min. wage won’t help the poor which we have successfully rebutted in our rebuttal
speech and shown in our case as a minimum wage helps bring wealth to poorer parts of society
by giving them a baseline for that allows for them to sustain themselves in order to reach for a
better job.

The second conflicting point is whether a national minimum wage will or will not harm
businesses

the oppositions first contention about a national min wage harming business is not true as the
businessess don’t lose profits which was proved in our rebuttal speech since they won’t end up
cutting jobs.

Finally the opposition has dropped their second contention which means that a national min
wage doesn’t need to address local conditions in order to be beneficial

Since we have shown how a national min wage doesn’t harm businesses while showing that it
benefits and brings wealth to the poor, we urge for a pro ballot