prompter: I would like to have a debate.
I will pick a subject and you will provide one side of the debate, I will take the other side and we will start debating.
if possible, try to cite all of your claims.

The subject we will debate is: Should we replace the government with AI?

assistant: I'd be happy to participate in a debate with you on the topic of whether or not we should replace the government with AI.

I will take the position that we should not replace the government with AI.

First, AI systems lack the human ethic and empathy that are necessary to make important decisions that affect people's lives.
Second, AI systems have very limited knowledge of the physical world and people's societies, thus such systems are not reliable in managing cities infrastructure and planning in general.
Third, AI systems can be hacked and that can have devastating consequences if they are governing the society.
Finally, AI systems have element of randomness and are not transparent which make them unpredictable.

prompter: Allow me to answer to each point:
First, I would like to point out that using AI to replace the government is a gradual process that will not happen overnight.

1. while it is true, it is also true that often politicians will put their own self interests over ethic and empathy, an AI does not have ulterior motives and while it wouldn't be perfect all the time, it would still be a better alternative.

2. As AI will make more mistakes due to lack of knowledge, new knowledge could be filled in, additionally an AI can hold a lot more information than a human is known to hold, especially one that doesn't have the time to learn.

3. Yes, however with proper mechanisms in place the consequences could be avoided.

4. I would personally prefer an AI that will be harder (but still possible!) to understand than a human who has ulterior motives 


another point I have to make - AI have the massive advantage of being able to work in parallel.

prompter: Could you please take the opposite position?

prompter: Can you imagine a doomsday scenario that could take place if we replace the government with AI?

assistant: I think government should not be replaced with AI. Power ultimately comes from the people and it can be a way for opposition to be large and not take the AI seriously. This could lead to a bloody revolution. I think it would be overall a bad idea.

prompter: now explain why you are wrong

assistant: Very well, let's have a debate. My position is that the government should not be replaced by AI. AI is not yet at a stage where it would provide adequate governance of a population, and is still unable to make decisions in the same way a human would.

prompter: I would argue that AI research is just at a stage where it is possible to at least consider replacing the government with AI.
with proper training data an AI could perform better than a politician simply because you cannot bribe AI.

assistant: While it may seem that the people's shortcomings such as taking a bribe could easily be replaced by an artificial intelligence agent and avoid, there still are numerous liabilities of trusting the AI to make political decisions. Examples include the AI becoming susceptible to bias [1], a lack of transparency in how an AI application may make decisions,[2] and the accountability for any such decisions [2].

[1] -> Mehr, Hila (August 2017). "Artificial Intelligence for Citizen Services and Government" (PDF). ash.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2018-12-31.
[2] -> Capgemini Consulting (2017). "Unleashing the potential of Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector" (PDF). www.capgemini.com. Retrieved 2018-12-31.

assistant: Great, we now know the context of this exchange and which interlocutor will be representing which angle of the issue, it would be usual now for us to speak for 5 minutes in turn, would you like to begin or shall i ?

prompter: What's your source to back this up?

prompter: But what if humans don't know what's best for them?