@Article{Slonim2021,

author={Slonim, Noam

and Bilu, Yonatan

and Alzate, Carlos

and Bar-Haim, Roy

and Bogin, Ben

and Bonin, Francesca

and Choshen, Leshem

and Cohen-Karlik, Edo

and Dankin, Lena

and Edelstein, Lilach

and Ein-Dor, Liat

and Friedman-Melamed, Roni

and Gavron, Assaf

and Gera, Ariel

and Gleize, Martin

and Gretz, Shai

and Gutfreund, Dan

and Halfon, Alon

and Hershcovich, Daniel

and Hoory, Ron

and Hou, Yufang

and Hummel, Shay

and Jacovi, Michal

and Jochim, Charles

and Kantor, Yoav

and Katz, Yoav

and Konopnicki, David

and Kons, Zvi

and Kotlerman, Lili

and Krieger, Dalia

and Lahav, Dan

and Lavee, Tamar

and Levy, Ran

and Liberman, Naftali

and Mass, Yosi

and Menczel, Amir

and Mirkin, Shachar

and Moshkowich, Guy

and Ofek-Koifman, Shila

and Orbach, Matan

and Rabinovich, Ella

and Rinott, Ruty

and Shechtman, Slava

and Sheinwald, Dafna

and Shnarch, Eyal

and Shnayderman, Ilya

and Soffer, Aya

and Spector, Artem

and Sznajder, Benjamin

and Toledo, Assaf

and Toledo-Ronen, Orith

and Venezian, Elad

and Aharonov, Ranit},

title={An autonomous debating system},

journal={Nature},

year={2021},

month={Mar},

day={01},

volume={591},

number={7850},

pages={379-384},

abstract={Artificial intelligence (AI) is defined as the ability of machines to perform tasks that are usually associated with intelligent beings. Argument and debate are fundamental capabilities of human intelligence, essential for a wide range of human activities, and common to all human societies. The development of computational argumentation technologies is therefore an important emerging discipline in AI research1. Here we present Project Debater, an autonomous debating system that can engage in a competitive debate with humans. We provide a complete description of the system's architecture, a thorough and systematic evaluation of its operation across a wide range of debate topics, and a detailed account of the system's performance in its public debut against three expert human debaters. We also highlight the fundamental differences between debating with humans as opposed to challenging humans in game competitions, the latter being the focus of classical `grand challenges' pursued by the AI research community over the past few decades. We suggest that such challenges lie in the `comfort zone' of AI, whereas debating with humans lies in a different territory, in which humans still prevail, and for which novel paradigms are required to make substantial progress.},

issn={1476-4687},

doi={10.1038/s41586-021-03215-w},

url={https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03215-w}

}