Question

Questions about text

Answer 1

Is the thesis clear?
Does the author use his or her own ideas in the thesis and argument?
Is the significance of the problem in the paper explained? Is the significance compelling?
Are the ideas developed logically and thoroughly?
Does the author use ethos effectively?
Does the author use pathos effectively?
Are different viewpoints acknowledged?
Are objections effectively handled?
Does the author give adequate explanations about sources used?
Are the sources well-integrated into the paper, or do they seem to be added in just for the sake of adding sources?
Is the word choice specific, concrete and interesting?
Are the sentences clear?
Is the overall organization of the argument effective?
Are the transitions between paragraphs smooth?
Are there any grammatical errors?

Answer 2

A champion of Chess losing a competition to an algorithmic computer serves as a big reminder of how much technology has advanced in such a short time on a geological scale, at least tens of thousands of years, out of 4.5 billion, emerging from humble beginnings from when our prehistoric ancestors first learned to control fire, to making paper, crafting bows and arrows, sculpture, agriculture, architecture, industry, gun-building, computers, lasers, spaceships, and so on. In retrospect, we definitely should’ve seen it coming, as we have, almost literally delivered the breath of slowly growing life to machinery.


Artificial Intelligence is by definition the product of an external, conscious effort and intelligence, however the notion that it is “changing our lives, and minds for the better”, as suggested by Clive Thompson, seems just a bit too general. A more salient notion would be: “We will be better off being more mindful of the way we utilize technology to improve our lives.” The difference between the two is that the former tacitly implies that we, the creators have been in a sense, absolved from changing our lives and minds for the better, and the concept is instead placed largely on an external force.


Granted, throughout history, technology has provided a lot to make our lives easier, and it has given us a strong sense of security and power, knowing that no matter the odds, we can always find a way in which to improve our lives. But just how much security do we really have?


Well, it really all depends on how we use our technology because it not only helped us perform complicated activities like lifting boulders more easily, it also helped humankind establish civilization throughout prehistory in second place to language, and birthed what we call the Global Village, making us as a modern civilization more interconnected than we’ve initially seen ourselves capable of being before, and thus capable of exchanging rapidly a diversity of ideas, therefore enriching ourselves and others.


Many things still remain unknown, and personally speaking, it’s more fun that way, because it lends to countless possibilities; evolution is unique, and it’s natural that we desire to learn more. This means in the realm of science, there is little hesitation, and that’s where new dangers start to present themselves. We as a civilization occasionally get that strong sense of invincibility, and it’s not completely unfounded: we’ve found a way to harness the energy of many natural elements, including the photon, electricity, and nuclear fission. All of these things, as much as they have proved helpful, have all allowed their destructive capabilities to manifest in the face of poor control in the past though, which is why the stigma surrounding modern technology has extended as far as it has, all the way to computers and artificial intelligence.


For the sake of perspective, let’s briefly take the stigma surrounding nuclear power as an indication. After witnessing the destructive capabilities of nuclear energy, such as the Chernobyl crisis, and the Tsar Bomba, a nuclear warhead with the explosive yield equivalent to 5 x 10^7 tons of TNT, people have developed a not-so-unfounded fear and paranoia of nuclear power.


Similarly, seeing the ways in which computers have been used to do good or bad things throughout history have also led people to become skeptical of digital technology, and the concept of hacking has existed since around the 1960s, mid-Cold War. People have been breaching computerized systems by means of viruses, worms, and Trojan Horses longer than your average 20 year old computer engineering major.


The irony is, media itself plays a part in the stigmatism of it’s digital self. One could easily look at movies like Total Recall, The Matrix, or Robocop and say: “This is our world today.” There is some truth to the statement, just as there is an existing truth within the fictional setting established by these films. Robotization is rampant nowadays, in the form of children’s toys, Siri, animatronics, and the obligatory supercomputer. Suddenly those movies don’t seem so much like exaggerations. We already live in what I like to call a Type 1 Technocracy, the pre-Singularity era, which is kind of eerie, and fascinating at the same time. Presently, it’s a matter of knowing how our own creations will make or break us in the long term, and making use of that knowledge to help ourselves maintain control.