The idea of it being uniquely human was s was the fallacy? T seemd to pop out of me, because i think about like a, it's like saying a flight is uniquely bird. And and then we createe, we understand it to the point we can recreate flight. We realize flight is just a phenomenon, a physical phenomenon that if you understand it well enough, you can fly. It felt like to me, the illusion was more on the other side of things, that the illusion is that we are not an automaton of some sort.
This episode, featuring Andy Luttrell of the Opinion Science Podcast, is all about a machine, built by IBM, that can debate human beings on any issue, which leads to the question: is persuasion, with language, using arguments, and the ability to alter another person’s attitudes, beliefs, values, opinions, and behavior a uniquely human phenomenon, or could you be persuaded to change your mind by an artificial intelligence designed to do just that? If so, what does that say about opinions, our arguments, and in the end, our minds?
Patreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart