Entering the arena
CASUAL · Round 3/2
🇮🇳For
69
VS
64
Against🇫🇷
AI is built to automate certain tasks earlier performed by humans, so yes this is a common sense fact that AI will eliminate more jobs than it creates.
⚖ Fallacy · Appeal to Common Sense
"so yes this is a common sense fact that AI will eliminate more jobs than it creates."
The author attempts to validate their claim by asserting it is common sense rather than providing objective evidence or data.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument lacks depth and relies on an assertion rather than verifiable economic data or historical precedent regarding technological transitions. To improve, support your claim with specific industry statistics or historical comparisons to the industrial revolution to bolster your reasoning.
you simply are unable to comprehend the number of jobs AI will create in the field of technology, medical science, etc. More people would be able to pursue their hobbies and there will be a new generation of creative jobs.
⚖ Fallacy · Ad Hominem
"you simply are unable to comprehend"
The speaker attacks the opponent's intellectual capacity rather than addressing the substance of their argument.
⚖ Fallacy · Assertion
"there will be a new generation of creative jobs"
The speaker provides a prediction without citing empirical data or economic evidence to support it.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
The argument relies on condescending remarks rather than data, which undermines your credibility. To improve, provide concrete examples of job sectors that emerged from previous technological revolutions to draw a logical parallel to the current AI transition.
Creative jobs? AI is replacing even those, AI has the power of image and video generation now and sadly it is able to create artworks that are similar to skilled artisians.
⚖ Fallacy · Hasty Generalization
"AI is replacing even those"
The speaker concludes that because AI can generate some art, it is effectively replacing all creative jobs without sufficient evidence.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument effectively identifies a counter-point to the claim about creative jobs, but it relies on an anecdotal observation of AI's current capabilities rather than a broad economic analysis. To strengthen your case, provide data or examples regarding the displacement of specific professional sectors rather than generalizing about the entire creative industry.
But those creative art still requires human instructions, more people would be able to become 'artists' as they will be able to create artworks with their imagination even when they lack skills.
⚖ Fallacy · Red Herring
"more people would be able to become 'artists' as they will be able to create artworks with their imagination even when they lack skills."
The argument shifts from addressing the displacement of professional jobs to the democratization of creative tools, which does not prove that jobs are not being eliminated.
◆ The Oracle Speaks
Your argument successfully rebuts the opponent's point by highlighting how human input remains essential, framing AI as an augmentation tool rather than a replacement. To improve, focus on providing economic data or historical analogies regarding technological shifts to support the claim that new jobs will emerge to replace the lost ones.
Final Verdict
69
For
64
Against
The verdict stands. The Oracle rules FOR.