On March 2, students filled the Gentile Gallery in the JC Williams center for the Veritas Society’s debate titled, “AI chatbots should not exist.”

This debate included professors, with Dr. Marc Barnes and Dr. Alex Plato on the affirmative side, and Dr. Fernanda Psihas and student Paul Bremberg on the opposing side. 

In their opening statements, the affirmative side considered the “social question of what world we have,” and what world we “want to have.”

 In this, they considered a few of Aristotle’s four causes. The efficient cause asks who is making the AI chatbots, as “their worldview is reflected in their creation”. The material cause asks what materials are used to make them, such as “slave labor.” The final cause questions the goals of people who make them, such as the “worldly end of power and wealth.” 

The affirmative side also considered “whether it is good or bad to have a conversation with a non-human.” They claim that when speaking and listening to someone, it “posits them as real.” Chatbots are designed specifically to be spoken to, and to “elicit fake conversation,” which requires us to “treat them as people.” Additionally, they believe that the progress of society is only good if the goals of society are good, and “the means by which the results are attained are immoral”, so chatbots are then immoral. 

The opposing side proposed “be careful to not allow something God has permissed,” explaining that God has allowed it to happen and brought good from AI. It allows products to be launched faster for student entrepreneurs and workflow to be more efficient for small business owners. “To say that AI chatbots shouldn’t exist is saying that a rural doctor, who doesn’t have anyone to help with scheduling, analyzing data, or planning, shouldn’t be able to make his processes more efficient … so that he has more time to see more patients to save more lives.” 

The opposing side also claims that taking AI away completely isn’t the right solution, because although it is dangerous, the people using it are the ones who create the real problems, not the AI itself. “The most famous line when it comes to firearm regulation [is] guns don’t kill people, people kill people. AI does not lead to these problems, people using AI lead to these problems.”

The opposing side believes the bad outweighs the good, as “natural parts of human history” are and that in history there were other “disruptive technologies,” that changed society for the better, like the printing press or the plow. They claim that AI has also greatly increased efficiency, “we as a species should not be held back by technological innovation because of a few bad actors. Should firearms not exist because people do bad things with firearms?” 

After the opposing side had its say, there was an open floor and lightning round, where audience members had the chance to share their opinions. 

The affirmative side concluded that it is a bad choice to create, have, and use AI chatbots because “we surrender to technology. We take our orders from technology” and it “replaces traditional morality.” Additionally, this side maintained that the “natural act of a human person should not be held hostage in this manner,” as it is when conversation is with a chatbot rather than a person.

They also conclude that the act of conversation, which is changed by AI chatbots, is different from simply using words. The distinction is important because the act of conversation includes being “understood as an intelligent partner,” where they listen and respond. The “natural act of a human person should not be held hostage in this manner,” as it is when conversation is with a chatbot, rather than a person. 

The opposing side concluded that the original purpose of AI was translation, not conversation. “We have to measure [AI] by how it changes society. How does it change the world?” 

“We are not called to disengage … we are called to do something, to drive it towards goodness and truth.” They claim that AI’s morals and ethical codes should be changed by people with different, and better, morals than the ones they have now. That they must change the future of AI, rather than take it away completely. 

The affirmative side won 69 to 34.