Results of the debate aside, I thought the optics of it could have been better. Why make the AI a female when the the majority of it's creators were men (I can only assume this as all the "support" engineers behind the scenes were men). Whoever creates AI will inevitably inject their own biases into the system. And so, when representing an AI system on stage, why not make it more representative of its creators and give it a male voice?

I do understand the motivation behind making it female - so that "equal" representative could be had on stage and female empowerment could be championed. But the AI lost anyways. So this only hurt us.

As the moderator said to start, "don’t trust the promise of artificial intelligence." I do not trust its promise as long as its creators do not represent the full breadth of perspectives of the entire human population.

Both sides missed the topic by focusing on the politcal-economics of subsidizing rather than the enrichment of the human experience, through preschool or not. In a way, it was apropro for the machine to debate for subsidizing preschools as an extension of the industrialization of humans into specialized cells and organs. To what extent are subsidies the engineering of social change, the carrot luring the sheep from the wolf infested pasture to the safety of the slaughterhouse? Harish almost touched on this briefly in the third round. While preschools may improve or equalize the quality of what they produce, as industrial farmers equalize the quality and increase the quantity of corn, we need to consider what is distroyed. What happens to the weeds, what happens to the bees, what happens to diversity, what happens to the family? Do parents become ovaries and testicles whose purpose is merely to crank out babies to feed the machine?

Fun experiment. I agree with the conclusion.

I was for the motion clearly both pre and post-debate. But at the same time I happy that a human beat AI in a debate.