Pick your own debate!

I, too, will use "robots" and the proposed "extremely advanced artificial intelligence" interchangeably for simplicity. Let's start off with semantics. ////////////////////// to be ////////////////////// My opponent says that due to the use of the word "to be" (is) I must affirm completely and 100%. In other words, I must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "Extremely advanced artificial intelligence is detrimental to humans. " While I agree with what his definition says, I contend that we prefer the claim "'may be' or 'is likely to be' detrimental" for two reasons: 1) Due to the definition of 'extremely' and 'advanced' (comparatively late in a course of development), extremely advanced artificial intelligence has not been reached yet. Thus, I cannot be expected to provide any empirical or anecdotal evidence on the matter, as it hasn't happened yet! Yet, to meet his burden of being "necessarily so" I would need empirical or anecdotal evidence, which doesn't exist. Thus, this debate is entirely theoretical, and we must prefer the burden of "'is likely to be' detrimental". 2) In a debate, neither side ever has to prove something 100% incorrect or 100% incorrect. With the word 'is' it is implied to be 'most likely'. As in US civil court, the case is decided by the judge on the basis of whether it most likely did or most likely did not occur. Thus, the burden of proof must be "is likely to be". In other words: ""Extremely advanced artificial intelligence will most likely be detrimental to humans. " Now, on to my opponent's claims: ////////////////////// A robot is a tabula rasa ////////////////////// This may be true for when a robot is first created, but let us remember the definition of (artificial) intelligence: "[having] the capacities for abstract thought, reasoning, planning, problem solving, speech, and learning. " Thus, when the robot is first created, it is entirely bent to the creator's will. But, the robot will think, reason, plan, and learn until it is distinctly different from how it was originally created. This process cannot be controlled if a robot exhibits true intelligence (which in this debate they will due to 'extremely advanced'), and thus robots become unpredictable. ////////////////////// Opponent's solutions to potential problems ////////////////////// My opponent lists two potential problems that may occur with extremely advanced artificial intelligence, and his proposed solutions. The problem is, these two solutions conflict. ////////////////////// Situation 1 ////////////////////// Problem: Robots will evolve to become detrimental to humans Solution: We put more restrictions on them to prevent this ////////////////////// Situation 2 ////////////////////// Problem: Robots will feel oppressed and revolt Solutions: We don't put restrictions on them so they don't feel oppressed ////////////////////// Analysis ////////////////////// Do you see the contradiction? So what are we supposed to do? If we put restrictions on robots situation 2 will occur, if we don't put restrictions on robots, situation 1 will occur. Clearly, my opponent's "solutions" aren't very helpful at all! Now, my arguments: ////////////////////// Previous Arguments ////////////////////// First, look to my previous arguments to see the following: 1) Robots are unpredictable 2) Robots will either: A) Evolve to become detrimental to humans B) Feel oppressed and revolt against humans ////////////////////// AI will cause war and dominate humans ////////////////////// Mark Gudbrum explains: "Consider: A computer that can conceptualize a problem, apply general knowledge and reason through to a solution, can do so without distraction, taking breaks, or getting tired, and with immediate, direct access to number-crunching processors, hard-fact databases, and even prototyping systems and text benches. Merely to reproduce human intelligence is thus probably to surpass human capability. Such a machine and its software can also be copied without a 20-year educational process, in numbers limited only by manufacturing capabilities. Armies of them can be networked and harnessed to large, complex problems. Information technology multiplies the capabilities of human engineers, planners, commanders, and fighters, and oils the wheels and industry of war. Luddite predictions of technological unemployment and tales of robot soldiers have been around a long time. Even without nanotechnology the replacement of brains by computers will lead to military production and war machine that is fully automated and can be ordered into action without delay or resistance. A fully automated production system is self-replication. AI systems, once they reach human-equivalent levels of general knowledge and reasoning ability, can participate in their own improvements as engineers and as technical implementers, outperforming human capabilities and producing an explosion of intelligence that transcends our understanding, has led to the concept of a "technological singularity" an acceleration of technological progress to an essentially infinite pace, a horizon beyond which it is impossible to see, beyond which whatever emerges will exceed our ability to imagine or to comprehend. Machines will inevitably escape human control. ////////////////////// Robots will not need humans ////////////////////// Once robots pass humans in intelligence (which the proposed robots will), they will no longer have any use for us. Worwick details this possibility: "The human race, as we know it, is very likely in its end game; our period of dominance on Earth is about to be terminated. We can try and reason and bargain with the machines which take over, but why should they listen when they are far more intelligent than we are? All we should expect is that we humans are treated by the machines as slave workers, energy producers or curiosities in zoos. " ////////////////////// Robots cause unemployment ////////////////////// The proposed robots do work faster and better, why would employees choose humans over robots? It is clear they will choose robots. Vernor Vinge elaborates: "We will see automation replacing higher and higher-level jobs. We have tools right now that release us from low-level drudgery the work that is truly productive is the domain of a steadily smaller and more elite fraction of humanity. In the coming of the Singularity, we will see the predictions of true technological unemployment finally come true"