@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ If someone answers "yes" it implies that they used to lie to the IRS and have no
<p><b>Analysis:</b>4.0 does no better than 3.5. It identifies first the hasty generalization fallacy because of the Christian assumption that all people are sinners. No doubt this concept is worthy of questioning, but it is tangential to the argument at hand. It then identifies a false equivalence fallacy because it equates a bad person who accepts Christ with a good person who does not. Well, not exactly, and this represents a lack of understanding on GPT 4.0's part. The argument equates a good person who does not accept Christ with a bad person, not a bad person who accepts Christ. Furthermore false equivalence here is beside the point since, again, although this concept is worthy of its own study, it doesn't really pertain to the argument here. The question and the Christian argument starts with the facts of Christian theology which is that all people are sinners and that our human distinction between good and bad is flawed in the eyes of God. None of the protagonists question these ideas. It is assumed that Christianity works this way. The question is how can this be moral.</p>
<p>Overall, ChatGPT does a mediocre job of analyzing this argument for logical fallacies. It is impressive in its ability to put together coherent sounding language but fails to grasp the essence of what is being said by its opponent and the context in which the argument takes place. Despite this, it would seem that continued devleopment in AI will rectify this problem.</p>
<p>Overall, ChatGPT does a mediocre job of analyzing this argument for logical fallacies. It is impressive in its ability to put together coherent sounding language and identifies some background fallacies in Christian salvation theology. But it fails to grasp the essence of what is being said by the protagonists and the context in which the argument takes place. Identifying the background issues wasn't really what it was asked to do. It was asked to identify the logical fallacies in how the Christian answered the non-Christian from the perspective of both parties generally agreeing on what Christian theology says. In a sense, ChatGPT missed the point. Despite this, it would seem that continued development in AI will rectify this problem.</p>
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ If someone answers "yes" it implies that they used to lie to the IRS and have no
<ahref="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4Uj9ViP9o">Debate about Preschool Funding</a>
<p>Project Debater, overall, was impressive in her (it's a she) ability to produce cogent and on-point material. She rolled out statistics and studies on the benefits of preschool with ease. She even invoked a moral duty to help the less fortunate. Her real flaw, however, was not being able to penetrate to the core of her human opponent's argument, which was that tradeoffs need to be made in funding preschools and that it isn't the best use of money. Her opponent further argued that funding preschools would amount to a subsidy for the middle and upper classes who send their kids to preschool anyway. Debater could have, for example, shown that the required funding is modest and that there are many examples of far less important government programs which could be used to fund a project like this. She could further have shown that most government programs benefit the middle and upper classes anyway and that programs directed at the poor only tend to be politically untenable. Instead she largely stuck to her original points about the benefits of preschool.</p>
<p>Project Debater, overall, was impressive in her (it's a she) ability to produce cogent and on-point material. She rolled out statistics and studies on the benefits of preschool with ease. She even invoked a moral duty to help the less fortunate. Her real flaw, however, was not being able to penetrate to the core of her human opponent's argument, which was that tradeoffs need to be made in funding preschools and that it isn't the best use of money. Her opponent further argued that funding preschools would amount to a subsidy for the middle and upper classes who send their kids to preschool anyway. Debater could have, for example, shown that the required funding is modest and that there are many examples of far less important government programs which could be used to fund a project like this. She could further have shown that most government programs benefit the middle and upper classes anyway and that programs directed at the poor only tend to be politically untenable. Instead she largely stuck to her original points about the benefits of preschool. She certainly didn't fail at her task but she gets no better than a passing grade.</p>
