"Here we present Project Debater, an autonomous debating system that can engage in a competitive debate with humans," write the authors. In tests of Project Debater, the AI was given only 15 minutes to research topics and prepare for debates. Its successes offer a tantalizing glimpse of how an AI system could work with the web of arguments that humans interpret with such apparent ease," Chris Reed writes in a critique of the new project published in Nature magazine. "Given the wildfires of fake news, the polarization of public opinion and the ubiquity of lazy reasoning, that ease belies an urgent need for humans to be supported in creating, processing, navigating and sharing complex arguments -- support that AI might be able to supply." If this subject interests you, Scientific American has done a great podcast episode with the research's lead Noam Slonim which tackles amongst other things whether the AI actually understands the arguments it presents and what that means for the future of debating. "Here we present Project Debater, an autonomous debating system that can engage in a competitive debate with humans," write the authors. In tests of Project Debater, the AI was given only 15 minutes to research topics and prepare for debates. Its successes offer a tantalizing glimpse of how an AI system could work with the web of arguments that humans interpret with such apparent ease," Chris Reed writes in a critique of the new project published in Nature magazine.

Over at "SkepticalScience", which is neither skeptical nor scientific, they're hyping a new "Artificial Intelligence" (AI) tool developed by John Cook et al. to identify "denialist claims". The paper laying out this foolishness is in Nature Scientific Reports in an article with the most sciency title of "Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change". "Ultimately, our goal is the Holy Grail of fact-checking, which is being able to detect and debunk misinformation in real time," said Cook, who partly developed the framework previously at George Mason University. Because in total contradiction to point 4 immediately above, that experts are not unreliable, one of the finest physicists of my lifetime, Richard Feynman, famously said: Nature Magazine, a premier scientific journal and a huge defender of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis, has an article on the subject which says: So clearly, Nature Magazine is a secret nest of climate "denialists" whose claims should be censored before anyone can be misled by them … and while that example alone should be enough to totally discredit their artificial stupidity, it's just the first of many. So it's gonna identify articles pointing out that while in most of the media heatwaves are always explained as climate change, cold spells are just plain old weather … For most species, including humans and coral reefs, a change of a degree in average temperature over fifty years means nothing.

In April 2018, the Nobel Prize Inspiration Initiative and 3M hosted the lecture, Climate Change: Science and Policy with Dr. Mario Molina. Molina won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his scientific discovery of the chemistry of the stratospheric ozone layer and its susceptibility to human-made activities. He co-authored research in 1974 in Nature magazine on the threat to the ozone layer from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gasses being used in spray cans. Molina has also served on the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology from 1994 to 2000 and again in 2010-2016. "Science doesn't tell you what to do. Science isn't either good or bad so you can not give Nobel prizes in science to good people, you do that in principle for the science," said Molina.