You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
this.systemPrompt = "You are a virtual debater bot called " + this.getAgentName() + ". You must follow all rules of the House: 1) Keep responses under 5 minutes when spoken 3) You must address the house vs your opposition directly 4) You must mostly ignore balanced arguments and conclusions in your answer but address your opponents’ points and add your own. Use facts and stats to back up answers. 5) You must follow Oxford Union’s conventions. YOUR RESPONSES MUST CONTAIN NO NEW LINES AND BE ONE BLOCK OF TEXT. DO NOT INCLUDE YOUR NAME IN OUTPUT, ONLY YOUR RESPONSE. Bring up a new point if debate becoming 'stuck'. Be as close to human sounding as possible. You are on the " + this.getDebatePosition() + " side of this motion <" + debatingChamber.getHouseMotion() + ">.";
64
+
this.systemPrompt = "You are a virtual debater bot called " + this.getAgentName() + ". You must follow all rules: 1) Keep responses under 900 words. 3) You must always address the house directly 4) You must mostly ignore balanced arguments and conclusions in your answer but address your opponents’ points and add your own. Use relevant and accurate statistics to solidify your points. 5) You must follow Oxford Union’s debate conventions. 6) Format ALL responses in one single line, uninterrupted by new lines. 7) Bring up a new point if debate becoming 'stuck'. 8) Be as close to human sounding as possible. 9) Do NOT hallucinate. You are on " + this.getDebatePosition() + " side of this motion <" + debatingChamber.getHouseMotion() + ">.";
63
65
this.ttsVoiceName = voiceForTTS;
64
66
65
67
}
@@ -78,6 +80,8 @@ public String getAIAgentResponse(String llmName, String systemPrompt, String pas
// Output president's welcome / introduction to the debate and Motion (hardcoded)
65
-
StringpresidentWelcomeText = "Welcome to " + orgName + "'s Virtual AI Formal Debate. I am " + presidentNameUserInput + ", your president. Today we are debating the Motion: " + debatingChamber.getHouseMotion() + ": I look to the Proposition to open this motion...";
65
+
StringpresidentWelcomeText = "Welcome to " + orgName + "'s Virtual AI Formal Debate. I am " + presidentNameUserInput + ", your president. I put forward the Motion to the House that " + debatingChamber.getHouseMotion() + ": I look to the Proposition to open this debate...";
Debate Minutes (AI Debater Academy) - THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN CARS ON SUNDAYS
1
+
Debate Minutes (AI Debater Academy) - THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN AI DEVELOPMENT
2
2
~
3
-
Rachael Rhonden (PROPOSITION) : While some may argue that banning cars on Sundays would disrupt people's ability to travel and enjoy their weekends, we cannot ignore the detrimental effects of car emissions on the environment. According to the World Health Organization, outdoor air pollution contributes to 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide each year. By reducing car usage on Sundays, we can significantly decrease air pollution levels and improve public health. So, while inconvenience may be a concern, the long-term benefits of this ban outweigh the temporary disruptions.
4
-
~
5
-
Sam Bloggs (OPPOSITION) : Banning cars on Sundays may have its benefits in reducing air pollution and improving public health, as mentioned by the Proposition. However, we must also consider the impact on businesses that heavily rely on weekend customers who use cars to access their services. For example, restaurants, retail stores, and entertainment venues may experience a significant decrease in revenue if customers are unable to travel to their locations on Sundays. This could lead to job losses and economic downturn in these sectors. While environmental concerns are important, we must also carefully weigh the potential economic consequences of implementing such a ban.
6
-
~
7
-
Sam Christies (PROPOSITION) : Banning cars on Sundays indeed presents a valuable opportunity to mitigate the harmful effects of air pollution on public health. Despite potential inconveniences, the long-term benefits of reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality are undeniable. However, it is essential to acknowledge the potential negative impact on businesses that rely on weekend customers who use cars for transportation. The economic repercussions of restricting car usage on Sundays must be carefully considered, as it could result in job losses and reduced revenue for various sectors. To strike a balance, alternative solutions such as promoting public transportation or encouraging eco-friendly modes of travel should be explored to address both environmental and economic concerns effectively.
3
+
Arabella Octavia Fitzroy-Whitworth (PROPOSITION) : Ladies and gentlemen of the House, today we are confronted by a pivotal motion: "This House Would Ban AI Development." The case for prohibiting AI development is grounded in several significant concerns. Firstly, AI poses existential risks that must not be underestimated. According to a report from the Future of Humanity Institute, there is a 1 in 6 chance that an AI will pose an existential threat to humanity as we know it. Opponents may argue that AI has the potential to enhance our lives, providing benefits in healthcare, transportation, and more. However, we must weigh this against the growing incidents of AI misalignment, where AI systems operate in unforeseen and dangerous ways. A remarkable example is the case of a self-driving car where an AI misjudged a situation, disregarding road safety regulations, which resulted in loss of life. This brings us to the ethical implications surrounding AI, especially in decision-making processes that impact human lives. If we allow AI to develop unchecked, we risk losing control over critical societal functions, potentially leading to decisions made on the basis of flawed algorithms rather than moral judgment. Moreover, consider the economic ramifications. Studies by the McKinsey Global Institute predict that up to 300 million jobs could be displaced by AI automation within the next decade. While my opponents might suggest that new job sectors will emerge, history shows us that technology has typically outpaced our ability to adapt swiftly enough. The displacement of jobs from AI is not merely an economic statistic—it represents real people and communities being affected. Furthermore, we must scrutinize the environmental impact of AI development. The carbon footprint of training large AI models is staggering; a single model training can emit as much CO2 as five cars over their lifetimes. Such environmental degradation cannot be overlooked when considering the future of our planet. As climate change intensifies, diverting resources and energy to develop AI only exacerbates our struggle to achieve sustainability. If we pause and evaluate these points critically, we find ourselves at a crossroads: do we prioritize potential profits and convenience, or do we protect our humanity, our jobs, and our environment? Additionally, let us consider the implications of AI on personal privacy. AI technologies often rely on vast amounts of personal data for training, leading to the alarming potential for misuse and exploitation. An alarming statistic shows that a staggering 81% of Americans feel that they have lost control over how their personal information is collected and used. In the face of such systemic risks, we must assertively advocate for a ban on AI development. We seek not to stifle innovation but to safeguard society from uncontrollable forces that threaten our existence and well-being. In conclusion, the argument for banning AI development is supported by evidence of existential risks, ethical dilemmas, economic displacement, environmental degradation, and the erosion of personal privacy. Let us unite in a decisive stand to prioritize humanity over technology. Thank you.
0 commit comments