Project Debater, which has been in the works since 2012, is designed to create interconnected, convincing speeches of itself, while the arguments of a human opponent last and create its own denial. It also comprises its own closing argument. In order to generate arguments and declines, Project Debater uses newspaper articles and magazines from its own database, and also takes on the nuances of human adversary arguments. It is not connected to the internet and can not crib arguments from sites like Wikipedia.
The Monday debate, organized by the nonprofit debate-hosting company Intelligence Squared US, was held in front of the audience at the Yerba Buena Center of San Francisco for the Arts. The subject of the debate ̵
It was followed by a traditional debate style. Each side gave a 4-minute introductory speech, then each had a 4-minute rejection with the other party. In the end, they gave a 2-minute closing argument. The audience is asked to vote for one party or the other at the start of the debate, and again at the end.
"Greetings, Harish," the Debater Project has begun, speaking to a major unchanging, voice woman. It argued, among other things, that subsidized preschools would help to break the cycle of poverty. It speaks in complete sentences, and is derived from a range of studies (including US Centers for Disease Control).
Natarajan, who is disputing against the resolution, said that subsidies will have resources that can be used by middle class families for other things. He also argued that subsidizing preschool does not mean that all children can attend.
"There are still individuals who will be priced because of market realities," he said.
Denial The segment of the debate is where some of the big differences between man and computer (beyond the appearance and vocal skills) are laid naked. Natarajan identified specific parts of the Debater Project argument and abolished them – like saying that a government could not rely completely on unrestricted budgets to put into useful programs.
Debater's denial of the Project, while clearly written, seems more like the continuation of its initial argument than a real denial of Natarajan's points. Saving the best counter argument for closing its statement. While undoubtedly, the elements of a proper debate all seem present.
While waiting for the final vote, Natarajan said it is interesting that Project Debater can contextualize information and hold detailed research. Combining his practices with people, he said, "can be very powerful."
Before the debate, 79 percent of listeners agreed to pay preschool and 13 percent disagreed. In the end, 62 percent of the crowd agreed and 30 percent did not agree. Because the style of this debate is scored by which part gets the most percentage points, Natarajan takes the win.
"It's really pushing the borders [of the] types of AI systems that are more interacting with us and better understanding us better," said IBM Research director Dario Gil on Monday in First Transition CNN.