AI debate project instructions (same from week 2; duplicated for findability)

Three debates will be held in class next Tuesday, September 12. Six teams will be involved in these debates (one team for each "side"). For those teams their project grade will be based on a presentation they prepare for the debate and their performance during the actual debate. The remaining teams will serve as executive board members that must make a decision in each debate by "voting" for their preferred argument. These teams will write a minimum-1 page rationale for each debate explaining their decision (the document would therefore be a minimum of 3 pages). The 3 pages of rationale will not be due until Tuesday, September 19 to allow the applicable teams time for reflection and writing.

Debate 1: Facial recognition AI in grocery stores
Yes team: Malicious Goat Ladies
No team: Based

The Meijer executive board is making a decision on whether to install facial recognition AI to their grocery stores. The executive board has been quite divided on this decision. One set of executives, dubbed the "yes" team has outlined a series of intended benefits to the customer experience. The other set of executes dubbed the "no" team have outlined a series of concerns that leave them thinking this implementation of facial recognition AI will be unethical. Each team will have one last chance to make their case to the entire executive board before a vote is held to determine whether to install facial recognition AI in stores and future policy around its use.

The "yes" team will present first for 10 minutes. They will introduce a specific plan/policy for facial recognition AI implementation, including the specific benefits and reasons it should be implemented and an explanation of how the plan is ethical and ultimately in the best interest of all parties involved.

The "no" team will present second for 10 minutes. They will provide a pre-planned presentation on reasons not to include facial recognition AI. Importantly, the "no" team's presentation should acknowledge both the positive and negative implications of facial recognition AI and propose an alternative technology strategy that is intended to mitigate the ethical concerns of facial recognition AI while still providing some of its intended benefits.

Both presentations will be followed by a 8-minute rebuttal discussion between both teams. Rebuttal "turns" will be limited to 2 minutes per team to allow the other team time to respond to each new argument/point.

Debate 2: Detection of health problems by your vehicle
Yes team: The Burners
No team: SAAR

Cars are getting smarter and Ford's executive team is mulling over several proposals to incorporate AI into their upcoming line of vehicles. One involves detection or short- and long-term health problems with the vehicle's driver/owner with semi-autonomous capacity to respond to or address the health problems. One set of executives, dubbed the "yes" team has outlined a series of intended benefits to the driver experience. The other set of executes dubbed the "no" team have outlined a series of concerns that leave them thinking this implementation of AI will be unethical. Each team will have one last chance to make their case to the entire executive board before a vote is held to determine whether to install the health detection AI in new vehicles and future policy around its use.

The "yes" team will present first for 10 minutes. They will introduce a specific plan/policy for health detection AI implementation, including the specific benefits and reasons it should be implemented and an explanation of how the plan is ethical and ultimately in the best interest of all parties involved.

The "no" team will present second for 10 minutes. They will provide a pre-planned presentation on reasons not to include the health detection AI. Importantly, the "no" team's presentation should acknowledge both the positive and negative implications of the AI and propose an alternative technology strategy that is intended to mitigate the ethical concerns of the health detection AI while still providing some of its intended benefits.

Debate 3: Computer vision AI to support the visually impaired
Yes team: Wolverines
No team: Ethicans

SVS vision is planning a new implementation of computer vision AI in their smart glasses intended for wearers who are legally or completely blind. The AI would support object detection in the wearer's vicinity to support a more independent lifestyle. This necessitates continuous visual data collection from glasses. One set of executives, dubbed the "yes" team has outlined a series of intended benefits to the everyday experience of the visually impaired. The other set of executes dubbed the "no" team have outlined a series of concerns that leave them thinking this implementation of AI will be unethical. Each team will have one last chance to make their case to the entire executive board before a vote is held to determine whether to install the health detection AI in new vehicles and future policy around its use.

The "yes" team will present first for 10 minutes. They will introduce a specific plan/policy for vision AI implementation, including the specific benefits and reasons it should be implemented and an explanation of how the plan is ethical and ultimately in the best interest of all parties involved.

The "no" team will present second for 10 minutes. They will provide a pre-planned presentation on reasons not to move forward with the vision AI. Importantly, the "no" team's presentation should acknowledge both the positive and negative implications of the AI and propose an alternative technology strategy that is intended to mitigate the ethical concerns of the AI while still providing some of its intended benefits.

How this project will be graded:

If you are one of the "debate teams" your project grade will be based on the professor's assessment of the clarity and coherence of the original 10 minute argument as well as responses during the rebuttal terms. A high quality argument and rebuttal should reference course literature assigned in the course up to the date of the debate (readings from weeks 1 and 2). You should submit any preparatory materials for the debate by Tuesday, September 12 (e.g., a document of talking points, a Powerpoint presentation, any visual support).

If you are a non-debate team (a team that makes a decision on each company's policy based on the debate), you will submit a 1-page rationale for each debate (3 pages total) indicating which side you think won the debate with ample explanation as to why. This rationale should leverage course literature. Furthermore, your rationale for each debate should also include a final plan for implementation the applicable technology in the company - this could be in the form of support for a strategy proposed by the respective debate team (with explanation of why you think that particular strategy should be followed), or a new strategy created by you that you think is superior to those presented by the respective debate team. The rationale document will be due Tuesday, September 19.