 An autonomous debating systemNoam Slonim (),
Yonatan Bilu,
Carlos Alzate,
Roy Bar-Haim,
Ben Bogin,
Francesca Bonin,
Leshem Choshen,
Edo Cohen-Karlik,
Lena Dankin,
Lilach Edelstein,
Liat Ein-Dor,
Roni Friedman-Melamed,
Assaf Gavron,
Ariel Gera,
Martin Gleize,
Shai Gretz,
Dan Gutfreund,
Alon Halfon,
Daniel Hershcovich,
Ron Hoory,
Yufang Hou,
Shay Hummel,
Michal Jacovi,
Charles Jochim,
Yoav Kantor,
Yoav Katz,
David Konopnicki,
Zvi Kons,
Lili Kotlerman,
Dalia Krieger,
Dan Lahav,
Tamar Lavee,
Ran Levy,
Naftali Liberman,
Yosi Mass,
Amir Menczel,
Shachar Mirkin,
Guy Moshkowich,
Shila Ofek-Koifman,
Matan Orbach,
Ella Rabinovich,
Ruty Rinott,
Slava Shechtman,
Dafna Sheinwald,
Eyal Shnarch,
Ilya Shnayderman,
Aya Soffer,
Artem Spector,
Benjamin Sznajder,
Assaf Toledo,
Orith Toledo-Ronen,
Elad Venezian and
Ranit Aharonov
Nature, 2021, vol. 591, issue 7850, 379-384 Abstract: Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is defined as the ability of machines to perform tasks that are usually associated with intelligent beings. Argument and debate are fundamental capabilities of human intelligence, essential for a wide range of human activities, and common to all human societies. The development of computational argumentation technologies is therefore an important emerging discipline in AI research1. Here we present Project Debater, an autonomous debating system that can engage in a competitive debate with humans. We provide a complete description of the system’s architecture, a thorough and systematic evaluation of its operation across a wide range of debate topics, and a detailed account of the system’s performance in its public debut against three expert human debaters. We also highlight the fundamental differences between debating with humans as opposed to challenging humans in game competitions, the latter being the focus of classical ‘grand challenges’ pursued by the AI research community over the past few decades. We suggest that such challenges lie in the ‘comfort zone’ of AI, whereas debating with humans lies in a different territory, in which humans still prevail, and for which novel paradigms are required to make substantial progress. Date: 2021 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:nature:v:591:y:2021:i:7850:d:10.1038_s41586-021-03215-w Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03215-w Access Statistics for this article Nature is currently edited by Magdalena Skipper More articles in Nature from Nature |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.