In this post, I will include a link to my draft for the final reflection, which can be found here, and will also detail areas to focus on in reading it.
 |
| Mika Lorenzen "Screenshot of Open Letter" 11 December 2015 via googledocs. Creator Usage. |
Friday, December 11, 2015
Draft of Open Letter
A Draft of Final Reflection
In this post, I will include a link to my draft for the final reflection, which can be found here, and will also detail areas to focus on in reading it.
For my draft, I'm worried that it may not flow together as well as it could and also that I didn't include enough evidence. Hopefully by focusing on those two areas I will be able to find ways to improve the piece as a whole and create a polished final product.
In this post, I will include a link to my draft for the final reflection, which can be found here, and will also detail areas to focus on in reading it.
Reflecting More on My Writing Process
Investigating Focuses Thoughts on The Course and More
In this blog post, I will be responding to directed questions to reflect further upon myself as a writer as I prepare to create my rough draft for the Final Reflection Project for this course. In doing so, I will generate specific, honest answers that will act as material to draw from as I compose my draft.
1. My biggest challenges that I faced this semester were the Saturday deadlines that consisted of blogposts as forms of pre-writing for the projects, and also motivating myself. I often encountered trouble in using my time throughout the week to make steady progress on this course - rather, I would divide my time each week to focus on one class at time, which usually resulted in me having to see to my English work on the day of the deadline. Additionally, having moved out in the latter third of this semester, I found that the change in environment and responsibility severely impacted my ability to motivate myself to work with dedication on this course's material.
2. This semester, I learned much about my time management skills, and also rediscovered my strengths as a writer. As far as time management goes, I realized that I truly have lacking skills when it comes to producing consistent work across weekly deadlines, which has served as a type of reality-check. I figured this out simply by seeing how often I worked on the day of the deadline, or after the deadline, each week - which ended up being much more frequent than I'm proud of. Additionally, as a writer, this course reinforced my belief that I work best when I've had time to thoroughly consider my drafts ahead of writing them, and when I'm passionate about what I'm writing. Project 2 and especially Project 3 were evidence of how I produced high quality (each earning high As) writing once I had contemplated them in detail and was able to write passionately about them, since I was able to choose the subject matter of both of those projects.
3. Before this semester, I honestly do not think that I paid special attention to genre, because most of my experience with writing was always with some form of essay. This course, however, with its focus on genre variety, was insightful in that it forced me to pay special attention to conventions and to master them in order to write a Quick Reference Guide, Rhetorical Analysis Essay for a specific audience and context, and an opinionated, informed article featuring on Slate.com. Undoubtedly, being aware of conventions of genres is central to the writing process as it largely affects the presentation of one's works of writing and also can serve as a base from which to work off of when composing a draft.
4. I think the most valuable skills I will take from this course to apply in future classes are writing genuine, idea-based drafts and also refining time management habits. As I've mentioned, for Project 3 I completed the draft in one long, stream-of-consciousness session, that produced a thorough but not necessarily polished product that I then improved in revision to create a truly thorough, well-crafted final work. In addition, my struggles with time management in this class have made me more skilled in recognizing my shortcomings in time management, and thus I hope to stay aware of my weaknesses and eventually improve upon them when it comes to using my time for coursework in the future.
5. I think my most effective moment in this course was the writing of my Public Argument project on artificial intelligence as a potential artistic medium. It was the first project I had written in my new home and I wrote it while having a profound difficulty in motivating myself, yet it was easily the most well-crafted piece of writing I produced this semester, which I attribute to my venturing outside of my typical writing process in order to write the draft through stream-of-consciousness and actually waiting to perfect the local qualities of the work until revision. The grade for the project didn't lie, and I truly feel that my article for that project was well-done and something to be proud of.
6. My least effective moments in this English class were how often I was behind in coursework and was forced to work with late penalties. As I've discussed, I had trouble with time management this semester, which was only made worse by my difficulty in motivating myself once I had moved, and altogether that resulted in me often missing deadlines and getting graded lowly on work that really was of high quality, that was only brought down by its lack of timeliness.
In this blog post, I will be responding to directed questions to reflect further upon myself as a writer as I prepare to create my rough draft for the Final Reflection Project for this course. In doing so, I will generate specific, honest answers that will act as material to draw from as I compose my draft.
 |
| No Creator Listed "Analysis" No Date via bluediamondgallery.com. Reuse with Modification (CC BY) License. |
2. This semester, I learned much about my time management skills, and also rediscovered my strengths as a writer. As far as time management goes, I realized that I truly have lacking skills when it comes to producing consistent work across weekly deadlines, which has served as a type of reality-check. I figured this out simply by seeing how often I worked on the day of the deadline, or after the deadline, each week - which ended up being much more frequent than I'm proud of. Additionally, as a writer, this course reinforced my belief that I work best when I've had time to thoroughly consider my drafts ahead of writing them, and when I'm passionate about what I'm writing. Project 2 and especially Project 3 were evidence of how I produced high quality (each earning high As) writing once I had contemplated them in detail and was able to write passionately about them, since I was able to choose the subject matter of both of those projects.
3. Before this semester, I honestly do not think that I paid special attention to genre, because most of my experience with writing was always with some form of essay. This course, however, with its focus on genre variety, was insightful in that it forced me to pay special attention to conventions and to master them in order to write a Quick Reference Guide, Rhetorical Analysis Essay for a specific audience and context, and an opinionated, informed article featuring on Slate.com. Undoubtedly, being aware of conventions of genres is central to the writing process as it largely affects the presentation of one's works of writing and also can serve as a base from which to work off of when composing a draft.
4. I think the most valuable skills I will take from this course to apply in future classes are writing genuine, idea-based drafts and also refining time management habits. As I've mentioned, for Project 3 I completed the draft in one long, stream-of-consciousness session, that produced a thorough but not necessarily polished product that I then improved in revision to create a truly thorough, well-crafted final work. In addition, my struggles with time management in this class have made me more skilled in recognizing my shortcomings in time management, and thus I hope to stay aware of my weaknesses and eventually improve upon them when it comes to using my time for coursework in the future.
5. I think my most effective moment in this course was the writing of my Public Argument project on artificial intelligence as a potential artistic medium. It was the first project I had written in my new home and I wrote it while having a profound difficulty in motivating myself, yet it was easily the most well-crafted piece of writing I produced this semester, which I attribute to my venturing outside of my typical writing process in order to write the draft through stream-of-consciousness and actually waiting to perfect the local qualities of the work until revision. The grade for the project didn't lie, and I truly feel that my article for that project was well-done and something to be proud of.
6. My least effective moments in this English class were how often I was behind in coursework and was forced to work with late penalties. As I've discussed, I had trouble with time management this semester, which was only made worse by my difficulty in motivating myself once I had moved, and altogether that resulted in me often missing deadlines and getting graded lowly on work that really was of high quality, that was only brought down by its lack of timeliness.
Revisiting My Writing Process
Returning To Me As A Writer
In this blog post, I will detail how I react to some of my first blog posts, My Writing Process - Inside the Mind of a Pseudo-Procrastinating Partial-Planner and My Calendar Reflection - Free Time*. I will discuss what kind of writing habits I now have as I reference "Discovering Your Writing Process" from Student's Guide to First Year Writing and I will use that reflection to predict how I will tackle writing challenges in the future.
Revisiting what I wrote in my initial blog posts about my writing habits, I think that I have made honest attempts at changing my writing process throughout this course. In "My Writing Process - Inside the Mind of a Pseudo-Procrastinating Partial Planner," I described myself as a Heavy Planner and also a Procrastinator - both of which were very true of me at the time, and still true of me now. However, despite the fact that I haven't necessarily changed in my habits, I think I made progress in evolving as a writer by trying out new writing methods and strategies, which I believe is commendable.
For instance, with Project 2, I felt that I was on familiar ground in writing a rhetorical analysis essay because I had done so many times before in high school in AP English Literature and AP English Composition courses. Yet, I believe that the length and depth of the Project 2 essay was appreciably larger than essays I had written in the past - which thankfully I recognized before sitting down to write my draft. That observation, combined with the fact that I had procrastinated with blog work and fallen behind in my blog posts for Project 2, led me to trying out something new: basing my draft primarily off of my pre-writing work. Due to the fact that I was completing the many blogposts about rhetorical analysis of audience, appeals, and writing context in close proximity to the draft deadline, I decided to work extensively on those pre-draft blogposts and then incorporate and adapt them into my draft. This was an approach that was outside of my normal writing process, yet in attempting to do it I learned that it saved me a massive amount of time in composing my draft. While I don't think I have learned to consistently apply this approach, I now recognize its value and likely will apply it in the future (as I am right now!).
Additionally, in Project 3, I wrote my draft in a method nearly opposite to my typical process - I sat down one night, and composed my article on Slate.com in that single sitting as ideas came to my mind. In total, the session lasted for about four hours or so, and it was all done in a stream-of-consciousness style. Again, certain conditions led me to doing this - such as how I had moved out not long before and had had trouble motivating myself to do consistent work across many sessions, and how my draft was a bit late, which was an incentive to complete it quickly. But, ultimately, writing an entire draft in one session and not filtering my ideas until revision was extremely uncharacteristic of my writing habits, and was truly very effective for creating a Public Argument that was of high quality and had an organized structure through an arc of thought - which clearly came from how I approached writing it in the drafting stages.
As far as time management goes, I think I honestly failed to grow as a writer during this semester. Often, I felt that I was working against the Saturday deadlines in photo-finish scenarios to avoid late penalties. And in other instances, I had to become a little too familiar with the late policy for my liking. As I concluded in my semester weekly calendar post, "My Calendar Reflection - Free Time*," I declared that if I efficiently used my time on campus (which I designated as "Free Time*"), I could easily finish my coursework without burdening my workload at home. However, as I found throughout the semester, I frequently used my time on campus to either unwind or, as was the case on my Wednesdays when I had the most Free Time*, to complete annotations and readings for my creative writing course. The result of this less-than-effective use on time on-campus was that I often fell behind in the coursework blogposts for this class, which led me to stressing and working up until (and sometimes after) the Saturday deadlines. In the future, I really believe that I need to acclimate to new settings more speedily and establish a working method that yields steady, consistent progress.
In reflecting on how my time and effort in this course will predict myself as a writer and self-motivated worker through the rest of my years in college and career, I think that I will be a producer of high quality work who operates through stress and heavy consideration of ideas. I say this because, overall, I would characterize my relationship with the work in this class as stressful, but rewarding; I would always stress over every deadline, as I always drew my submissions too close for comfort to the due dates, but I was satisfied with my final products for all of the three major projects once I had completed them.
However, I hope that I will not confirm this prediction. I don't think my stressful writing process is healthy, even if it allows me more time to plan out and consider my drafts and products before I write them. I know that I will eventually need to change my work habits, especially as I enter the workforce both for part-time and for a career, so that I will constantly yield more reliable results and progress in my work. But for that to happen, I need to start actively making those changes happening now, and apply the lessons from my ventures outside of my typical writing process in this class to my courses to come.
In this blog post, I will detail how I react to some of my first blog posts, My Writing Process - Inside the Mind of a Pseudo-Procrastinating Partial-Planner and My Calendar Reflection - Free Time*. I will discuss what kind of writing habits I now have as I reference "Discovering Your Writing Process" from Student's Guide to First Year Writing and I will use that reflection to predict how I will tackle writing challenges in the future.
 |
| Brain POP "The Writing Process" 17 May 2010 via flickr.com. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 License. |
For instance, with Project 2, I felt that I was on familiar ground in writing a rhetorical analysis essay because I had done so many times before in high school in AP English Literature and AP English Composition courses. Yet, I believe that the length and depth of the Project 2 essay was appreciably larger than essays I had written in the past - which thankfully I recognized before sitting down to write my draft. That observation, combined with the fact that I had procrastinated with blog work and fallen behind in my blog posts for Project 2, led me to trying out something new: basing my draft primarily off of my pre-writing work. Due to the fact that I was completing the many blogposts about rhetorical analysis of audience, appeals, and writing context in close proximity to the draft deadline, I decided to work extensively on those pre-draft blogposts and then incorporate and adapt them into my draft. This was an approach that was outside of my normal writing process, yet in attempting to do it I learned that it saved me a massive amount of time in composing my draft. While I don't think I have learned to consistently apply this approach, I now recognize its value and likely will apply it in the future (as I am right now!).
Additionally, in Project 3, I wrote my draft in a method nearly opposite to my typical process - I sat down one night, and composed my article on Slate.com in that single sitting as ideas came to my mind. In total, the session lasted for about four hours or so, and it was all done in a stream-of-consciousness style. Again, certain conditions led me to doing this - such as how I had moved out not long before and had had trouble motivating myself to do consistent work across many sessions, and how my draft was a bit late, which was an incentive to complete it quickly. But, ultimately, writing an entire draft in one session and not filtering my ideas until revision was extremely uncharacteristic of my writing habits, and was truly very effective for creating a Public Argument that was of high quality and had an organized structure through an arc of thought - which clearly came from how I approached writing it in the drafting stages.
As far as time management goes, I think I honestly failed to grow as a writer during this semester. Often, I felt that I was working against the Saturday deadlines in photo-finish scenarios to avoid late penalties. And in other instances, I had to become a little too familiar with the late policy for my liking. As I concluded in my semester weekly calendar post, "My Calendar Reflection - Free Time*," I declared that if I efficiently used my time on campus (which I designated as "Free Time*"), I could easily finish my coursework without burdening my workload at home. However, as I found throughout the semester, I frequently used my time on campus to either unwind or, as was the case on my Wednesdays when I had the most Free Time*, to complete annotations and readings for my creative writing course. The result of this less-than-effective use on time on-campus was that I often fell behind in the coursework blogposts for this class, which led me to stressing and working up until (and sometimes after) the Saturday deadlines. In the future, I really believe that I need to acclimate to new settings more speedily and establish a working method that yields steady, consistent progress.
In reflecting on how my time and effort in this course will predict myself as a writer and self-motivated worker through the rest of my years in college and career, I think that I will be a producer of high quality work who operates through stress and heavy consideration of ideas. I say this because, overall, I would characterize my relationship with the work in this class as stressful, but rewarding; I would always stress over every deadline, as I always drew my submissions too close for comfort to the due dates, but I was satisfied with my final products for all of the three major projects once I had completed them.
However, I hope that I will not confirm this prediction. I don't think my stressful writing process is healthy, even if it allows me more time to plan out and consider my drafts and products before I write them. I know that I will eventually need to change my work habits, especially as I enter the workforce both for part-time and for a career, so that I will constantly yield more reliable results and progress in my work. But for that to happen, I need to start actively making those changes happening now, and apply the lessons from my ventures outside of my typical writing process in this class to my courses to come.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Reflection on Project 3
Looking Back on Completed Project 3
In this blog entry, I will examine my Project 3 work now that it is over and done. In doing so, I will gain some insight for my final project into how I wrote my public argument and what my process was.
1. I wrote an extensive first draft, and only had slightly-different iterations of the project in subsequent drafts, but the primary changes I made from drafts to final, published product were focused on conventions, transitions, and evidence. As far as conventions went, I continually strove for making my article as similar as possible to real articles seen in my genre at slate.com's Future Tense. However, most of my revising effort went into providing more transitions to improve the flow of my argument ("Thus" and other simple transitional phrases) and also into providing more evidence to increase my amount of hyperlinks to support my argument and give a sense of credibility (ex. citing Miku as evidence in my final draft).
2. Honestly, I left my global structure and thesis almost - if not entirely - intact. My revisions were mostly focused on conventions and more micro-level improvements.
3. What motivated me to make changes to improve my transitions and evidence was mostly a reminder that my piece was very much an open-thought opinion article that is supported by mentions of facts and other sources. Thus, I ensured to provide ample transitions to leave no room for confusion as I moved from thought to thought, and I also sought new pieces of evidence that I could hyperlink for my readers to explore to find more material related to how I developed my opinions.
4. I think that the conventions, transitions, and evidence greatly improve my credibility as an author because they exhibit my deliberate assembly of my article that fits in a respected genre, and because the evidence specifically shows my awareness of the controversy and related subjects.
5. I think that the conventions will help my article fit better on slate.com, because they are conventions of the genre of articles in Future Tense. Additionally, having more transitions and evidence allows my audience to be broader and possibly less versed in the AI controversy because the evidence provides them with necessary information and the transitions guide them through my argument.
6. As I've discussed in great detail, I included more transitional phrases between my short paragraphs to ease the flow of my very pointed and declarative paragraphs.
7. I think that making my ideas flow together more easily and making my evidence substantive will let my audience reach my meaning much more readily and without much strain - as I think is necessary for an article in my genre, as disruptions of flow can compromise the logical, contemplative structure of the piece.
8. As I said above, I paid particular attention to conventions. While I met the formatting conventions of my genre in my first draft well and revised only to adjust them, I did reconsider (often) the thought-guided style of articles in my genre and thus had to focus on improving the flow of my writing to ensure that that style was not compromised.
9. I think that reflecting on what I focused on in revision for this project actually shows that, in drafting stages, I try my best to reach the best global state for my writing, and let more micro-level adjustments be made later on in the drafting process. I think that this will be a key point in analyzing myself as a writer in the next project!
In this blog entry, I will examine my Project 3 work now that it is over and done. In doing so, I will gain some insight for my final project into how I wrote my public argument and what my process was.
 |
| Profberger "Serval Looking Back" 27 July 2007 via wikipedia.org. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Unported 3.0 License. |
1. I wrote an extensive first draft, and only had slightly-different iterations of the project in subsequent drafts, but the primary changes I made from drafts to final, published product were focused on conventions, transitions, and evidence. As far as conventions went, I continually strove for making my article as similar as possible to real articles seen in my genre at slate.com's Future Tense. However, most of my revising effort went into providing more transitions to improve the flow of my argument ("Thus" and other simple transitional phrases) and also into providing more evidence to increase my amount of hyperlinks to support my argument and give a sense of credibility (ex. citing Miku as evidence in my final draft).
2. Honestly, I left my global structure and thesis almost - if not entirely - intact. My revisions were mostly focused on conventions and more micro-level improvements.
3. What motivated me to make changes to improve my transitions and evidence was mostly a reminder that my piece was very much an open-thought opinion article that is supported by mentions of facts and other sources. Thus, I ensured to provide ample transitions to leave no room for confusion as I moved from thought to thought, and I also sought new pieces of evidence that I could hyperlink for my readers to explore to find more material related to how I developed my opinions.
4. I think that the conventions, transitions, and evidence greatly improve my credibility as an author because they exhibit my deliberate assembly of my article that fits in a respected genre, and because the evidence specifically shows my awareness of the controversy and related subjects.
5. I think that the conventions will help my article fit better on slate.com, because they are conventions of the genre of articles in Future Tense. Additionally, having more transitions and evidence allows my audience to be broader and possibly less versed in the AI controversy because the evidence provides them with necessary information and the transitions guide them through my argument.
6. As I've discussed in great detail, I included more transitional phrases between my short paragraphs to ease the flow of my very pointed and declarative paragraphs.
7. I think that making my ideas flow together more easily and making my evidence substantive will let my audience reach my meaning much more readily and without much strain - as I think is necessary for an article in my genre, as disruptions of flow can compromise the logical, contemplative structure of the piece.
8. As I said above, I paid particular attention to conventions. While I met the formatting conventions of my genre in my first draft well and revised only to adjust them, I did reconsider (often) the thought-guided style of articles in my genre and thus had to focus on improving the flow of my writing to ensure that that style was not compromised.
9. I think that reflecting on what I focused on in revision for this project actually shows that, in drafting stages, I try my best to reach the best global state for my writing, and let more micro-level adjustments be made later on in the drafting process. I think that this will be a key point in analyzing myself as a writer in the next project!
Publishing Public Argument
Recognizing the Art in Artificial Intelligence
This blogpost will provide a link to my final draft of my Project 3 Public Argument, and detail some elements of its rhetorical situation and purpose!
The link to my draft can be found here - it is in the form of an article at slate.com as part of Future Tense: The Citizen's Guide to the Future.
Also after my responses to the guided questions, I included a couple important notes for viewing my article!
Also after my responses to the guided questions, I included a couple important notes for viewing my article!
 |
| Mika Lorenzen "Screenshot of Public Argument Article" 22 November 2015 Creator usage. |
←----------------------------------------------------|--X------------------------------------------------------>
Strongly Totally neutral Strongly
agree disagree
2. Now mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience should be (after they've read/watched/heard your argument) below:
←-------------------------X-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------->
Strongly Totally neutral Strongly
agree disagree
3. Check one (and only one) of the argument types below for your public argument:
__X__ My public argument establishes an original pro position on an issue of debate.
_____ My public argument establishes an original con position on an issue of debate.
_____ My public argument clarifies the causes for a problem that is being debated.
_____ My public argument proposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.
_____ My public argument positively evaluates a specific solution/policy under debate.
_____ My public argument openly refutes a specific solution or policy under debate.
4. Briefly explain how your public argument doesn’t simply restate information from other sources, but provides original context and insight into the situation:
My public argument identifies how the controversy of artificial intelligence technology has been centered on a utilitarian perspective of use and productivity, and proposes that we should also consider the technology's artistic potential when determining whether or not we should be exciting for such a new development. Ultimately, I argue that we can't only consider scientific values of new technologies but must also incorporate an analytical mindset towards artistic mediums from new technology - a view that has not yet been voiced in the AI controversy.
5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed in your public argument below:
Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals
__x__ Telling personal stories that establish a credible point-of-view
__x__ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)
__x__ Employing carefully chosen key words or phrases that demonstrate you are credible (proper terminology, strong but clear vocabulary, etc.)
__x__ Adopting a tone that is inviting and trustworthy rather than distancing or alienating
__x__ Arranging visual elements properly (not employing watermarked images, cropping images carefully, avoiding sloppy presentation)
_____ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate image of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)
__x__ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)
_____ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently
__*__ Appealing openly to the values and beliefs shared by the audience (remember that the website/platform/YouTube channel your argument is designed for helps determine the kind of audience who will encounter your piece)
__x__ Other: *While I did not necessarily appeal to a slate.com-specific audience through this, I did appeal to followers of the AI debate through presenting a fresh viewpoint that is grounded in my own opinions, which also would appeal to artists seeking information about new artistic mediums in our future.
Emotional appeals
_____ Telling personal stories that create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
_____ Telling emotionally compelling narratives drawn from history and/or the current culture
_____ Employing the repetition of key words or phrases that create an appropriate emotional impact
__x__ Employing an appropriate level of formality for the subject matter (through appearance, formatting, style of language, etc.)
_____ Appropriate use of humor for subject matter, platform/website, audience
_____ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point
_____ Use of imagery to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
_____ Employing an attractive color palette that sets an appropriate emotional tone (no clashing or ‘ugly’ colors, no overuse of too many variant colors, etc.)
_____ Use of music to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
_____ Use of sound effects to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate
__x__ Employing an engaging and appropriate tone of voice for the debate
_____ Other:
Logical or rational appeals
_____ Using historical records from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns
__*__ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns
_____ Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position
__**__ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position
__x__ Effective organization of elements, images, text, etc.
__x__ Clear transitions between different sections of the argument (by using title cards, interstitial music, voiceover, etc.)
__x__ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments
__x__ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument
_____ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)
__x__ Other:
*I did cite a video-game awards page that was only tangentially important as a hyperlink, but technically I did cite a statistic.
**I referenced Dr. Tilli's article and her argument in my text for a substantial portion of it, and while it didn't relate to my argument about art and thus couldn't affirm it, it did establish how I think people should be excited for/in favor of AI technology, and thus it did somewhat support my position.
6. Below, provide us with working hyperlinks to THREE good examples of the genre you've chosen to write in. These examples can come from Blog Post 11.3 or they can be new examples. But they should all come from the same specific website/platform and should demonstrate the conventions for your piece:
Here are three examples of my genre at slate.com's Future Tense: The Citizen's Guide to the Future:
-The article by Dr. Tilli that I referenced in my piece, "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence"
-Adam Elkus's article "The Emotional Uncanny Valley"
-Jacob Brogan's article "Will Libraries Outlive Books?: A Future Tense Event Recap"
NOTICE: Future Tense articles always share a similar heading for the Future Tense text, and the authors' names are always hyperlinks to a brief author biography page. Check mine out!
ANOTHER NOTICE: The formatting of the first page really does change depending on how you're viewing the document, so I can't help it that for some devices/situations the heading and giant "T" seem offset or weird. Please use the picture I included with this blogpost to see what it looks like on my end (I spent time on that stuff!).
ANOTHER NOTICE: The formatting of the first page really does change depending on how you're viewing the document, so I can't help it that for some devices/situations the heading and giant "T" seem offset or weird. Please use the picture I included with this blogpost to see what it looks like on my end (I spent time on that stuff!).
Monday, November 2, 2015
Considering Types
Contemplating Evaluative Argument, Amongst Others
In this blog post, I will simply discuss what type of argument I think my public debate will assume, based on what goals I want to achieve through it, its rhetorical situation, and how I want to format it.
I think my argument will take the form of an evaluative argument.
I say this because, in thinking about how I would construct my argument, I would need a starting point that is already participating in my controversy since I'm going to put a new spin on perspectives on AI. Thus, proposal and causal arguments are already not fitting as they don't refer to another piece of argument. With a reference to begin with, I could begin my argument by covering what ground the controversy currently resides on and what points are used in its debate before I present my own view, thus making the contrast between current arguments and my own unique argument much more distinct. However, I don't think a refutation argument would fit the style of my argument because my argument presents a completely new side to the AI controversy and thus wouldn't be able to address every point in an opposing argument fairly without compromising what I want to convey.
This leaves me with an evaluative argument, which I believe will work well as I can expound upon the pro-AI position in Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" by discussing the artistic potential of AI technology.
Although, I must admit I am open to the position argument, which I have not yet mentioned because I think it could also fit what I want to say in my argument and how I want to convey my message. While the position argument does not reference another piece of argument, it would allow me to directly defend a pro-AI position with my own unique perspective on AI and art.
At this point in time, I will have to decide between an evaluative or position argument for my public debate.
In this blog post, I will simply discuss what type of argument I think my public debate will assume, based on what goals I want to achieve through it, its rhetorical situation, and how I want to format it.
 |
| Moyle, Dan "Choices" 2 January 2014 via flickr.com. Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) License. |
I say this because, in thinking about how I would construct my argument, I would need a starting point that is already participating in my controversy since I'm going to put a new spin on perspectives on AI. Thus, proposal and causal arguments are already not fitting as they don't refer to another piece of argument. With a reference to begin with, I could begin my argument by covering what ground the controversy currently resides on and what points are used in its debate before I present my own view, thus making the contrast between current arguments and my own unique argument much more distinct. However, I don't think a refutation argument would fit the style of my argument because my argument presents a completely new side to the AI controversy and thus wouldn't be able to address every point in an opposing argument fairly without compromising what I want to convey.
This leaves me with an evaluative argument, which I believe will work well as I can expound upon the pro-AI position in Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" by discussing the artistic potential of AI technology.
Although, I must admit I am open to the position argument, which I have not yet mentioned because I think it could also fit what I want to say in my argument and how I want to convey my message. While the position argument does not reference another piece of argument, it would allow me to directly defend a pro-AI position with my own unique perspective on AI and art.
At this point in time, I will have to decide between an evaluative or position argument for my public debate.
My Rhetorical Action Plan
Making the Gameplan: How to Put The "Art" in "Artificial Intelligence"
In this blog post, I will cover three primary areas of my argument's rhetorical situation: its audience, its genre, and its potential effects on the audience. I will detail my responses to provided questions about each of these aspects of rhetorical situation, and thus construct a solid foundation to base my writing of my public argument off of.
Audience
Genre
Positive Reactions
Positive reactions I'd like to see emerge from reading my argument:
Negative Rebuttals
Here are negative reactions that could come from reading my argument, and how I might deal with them:
In this blog post, I will cover three primary areas of my argument's rhetorical situation: its audience, its genre, and its potential effects on the audience. I will detail my responses to provided questions about each of these aspects of rhetorical situation, and thus construct a solid foundation to base my writing of my public argument off of.
 |
| R, Greenhill, H. Elias, Shadow Robot Company "The Shadow Robot Hand System" 9 January 2007 via wikipedia.org. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) License. |
- My audience should have a basic level of understanding of what artificial intelligence means (a technology that will lead to intelligent computer systems/robotics capable of carrying out what we consider higher cognitive tasks) and that there is a controversy over the technology's development. Additionally, my audience should, but may not have to, be aware of what the debates for and against AI development have been focusing on: practical applications to fields and industries, control of the technology, its effects on economies. My audience likely will have gained this knowledge from common science websites and magazines like Slate, Wired, Livescience, Discover, and other general information websites than appeal to scientifically-interested audiences. My audience likely will not have considered AI as an artistic medium and will thus not have assessed its artistic value, or may not even consider artistic values much at all. While some of my audience may actually be artists looking into the AI controversy (so they would be the opposite case of the audience stated above), these artists may not have considered AI as a medium for art either, so ultimately I will need to specify how AI could become an art form and present evidence that artists can adapt to new technologies.
- I believe my scientifically-inclined audience will believe that the AI controversy is important and that it is an issue that needs to be discussed today before the development of the technology has progressed too far to change. They may also cling to the regular points of debate of AI - economic impact, feasibility, control - and thus they might believe that AI could be good or bad for those things, and will be fairly new if not totally new to my perspective.
- I think that, given how my argument will be foreign in a sense due to its focus on the art brought forth by a technology, I would do well to include current evidence of artists embracing new technologies to create art. Communicating that video games and robotics have become legitimate forms of art may appeal well to my audience by demonstrating to them that artists are accepting of new technologies and are even eager to work with them to create masterpieces.
- Again, given that my argument will focus on art, I think presenting concrete evidence of current, technologically up-to-date art will show my audience that artists really are using new technologies for their artwork. Additionally, if I could find statistics on artists' usage of digital media versus conventional media, my audience could gain a firm understanding of how new technologies introduce new art media. Lastly, if I could find some visually attractive or vibrant images of artists' renditions of AI, that could serve useful to provide images of the future medium for my audience.
- My audience will be reading my argument for an assessment of current arguments in the AI controversy, followed by my own unique argument about the art that may come from AI technology. Thus, my audience is reading to understand a fresh viewpoint on the issue, and my purpose in arguing to them will be to challenge standing beliefs or perspectives on AI by arguing outside the typical realms of the AI debate. I think my argument could motivate readers who were not reached by the approaches of other arguments on the topic, and if nothing else, will at least provide my audience with a new outlook to ponder.
Genre
- One genre I'm considering writing in for my public debate is an informative opinion article for Future Tense: A Cititzen's Guide to The Future at slate.com. These types of articles have the explicit mission statement of describing how technologies in our current day could impact our futures in meaningful ways, and thus I would be discussing how art might change with the creation of AI technology.
- Here are two examples of this genre:
- Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence"
- Rhett Larson's article on Mars' newly-found liquid water and how it might be distributed in the future in Martian colonies.
- This genre is designed to increase awareness in readers about how today's technologies will create lasting impacts on our futures, as well as to encourage critical long-term thinking about how our histories will shape over the next few decades. I think this could work well for my argument since I will be discussing how a technology that is estimated to be three decades away will influence the art our world's cultures produce.
- This genre will appear specifically in the Future Tense project between Slate, New America, and Arizona State University, online.
- I don't believe I command enough authority or expertise on the topic to employ many ethos appeals aside from demonstrating my artistic knowledge of new-media artworks. I also could effectively appeal to emotion by discussing the power of art that uses new technologies to inspire, excite, or sadden, which I believe everyone can relate to. Additionally I believe I could explain, through hyperlinks and references to examples, how artists have embraced new technologies and will likely do the same with AI.
- This genre employs few visual elements, as the focus is on the text. The text is organized into medium-length, palpable paragraphs that are not often accompanied by images. The articles do begin with large titles and an image, however. I may also consider including my picture or some by-line element at the end of my article.
- Articles in this genre carry an air of conversation, but generally remain somewhat formal. References to the self are certainly allowed, and are used to illustrate a point, thus creating the conversational feel. However, the articles are not informal in that anecdotes or slang are used, really, and thus the genre consists of a formal, conversational style.
- The other genre I'm thinking about writing in is what I have dubbed "the slideshow article." This genre is essentially a series of images that are accompanied by sections of what reads as an article, but function as captions that speak to a larger story in addition to the image its associated with. I primarily would like to try this genre to organize my argument visually and in easy-to-digest parts, as I could accompany the different elements of my argument with images that match as I ultimately cover how art could change with the introduction accessible AI technology to everyday life.
- Included are two examples of this genre:
- Here is an example of an article that is broken into sections via images that are clicked through about Jason deCaires Taylor's underwater sculptures that act as artificial coral reefs in the Caribbean area.
- Provided here is an article in a series of image captions and pictures that are about biological artwork, which was adapted from a book.
- The genre is designed to inform, visually and through text, the reader/viewer about something going on in the world or a current movement, for instance (see second example provided). As I stated above, I chose this genre for the organizational strength it carries and because it may help convey my art argument visually, which is suiting.
- While I found the examples of this genre on Discover Magazine's online website, which does employ the use of powerful and eye-catching images, I could see this genre appearing in less formal yet informative websites, such as news hubs or the like, which organize articles or images through articles that synthesize different sources to some extent.
- Again, I think I lack proper expertise on the topic and thus cannot appeal to character very much, but I could potentially flex my artistic knowledge to gain credibility with my audience. I think I could also appeal to emotions through deliberate choice of images and including captions that detail the emotional power of art. Lastly, I could potentially include pictures of statistics to appeal to logic but that may ruin the thematic consistency of the images I use, and thus I should limit myself to logical appeals by providing evidence that artists do in fact use and embrace new media.
- As stated above, this genre utilizes large amounts and focus upon images, with the text being more marginal (literally) and the conventions of a typical article being much less present.
- The "slideshow-article" does maintain a formal style that is also academic, but I suppose that could be bent to some degree as the format already is unusual and would lend itself to a more dialogue-oriented argument that carries between captions.
Positive Reactions
Positive reactions I'd like to see emerge from reading my argument:
- An excitement in my audience for AI development and accessibility to the public
- An adoption of artistic thinking when performing critical analyses of new technologies, effectively diversifying views and considerations on the controversy AI, which typically revolves around discussions of responsibility, control, economy, and industry.
- An appreciation in my audience for technologies', both current and futuristic, abilities to provide fresh and powerful artistic options, as well as an awareness of how artists have made various media work for their artistic purposes already
Negative Rebuttals
Here are negative reactions that could come from reading my argument, and how I might deal with them:
- A claim that energy in contemplating AI technology is misplaced in artistic thinking and not more practical uses
- I could stress that my argument focuses more on what great things people could accomplish with AI and that art is an industry in itself and is not to be ignored or downplayed
- A refutation that art is a legitimate consideration when talking about science and technology
- I would need to adequately display how already artists have taken to new technologies and media to create masterpieces that matter
- A claim that art, although important, doesn't measure up to industrial and economic concerns over AI
- Again, I could stress that art has become a profitable industry made possible by media such as computer and console gaming, electronic sound-boarding for music, etc. to demonstrate that art's direction influences not only culture but economy
- A claim that the art I mention is too far away to discuss
- I could illustrate that scientists think strong AI is only three decades away, which I could relate to the 80s and now to show how new technologies have undeniably shaped our lives today (mobile music devices, bluetooth cars, streaming services, etc.)
Analyzing Purpose
Determining the Purpose of My Public Argument
In this blog entry, I will respond to the questions on purpose as posed in Writing Public Lives in order to gain a better understanding of how I want to construct my public debate and what message I want it to drive. In doing so, I will clearly see what I want to accomplish with my argument.
1. I think that my public argument will focus on the artistic potential of artificial intelligence as a future technology. By this I mean that I want to discuss not the practical applications of AI to fields like medicine or the auto industry, but the potential for AI to become a new medium for artists. I will likely how to frame my article in current evidence of art embracing new media such as video games and robotics (they exist!), and extrapolate my argument from there to include AI as another medium that artists will get to use and create with in the future. What I want my audience to feel, then, is an excitement; I want my readers to experience a unique and new perspective on the controversy, while also having their imaginations engaged by the potential artworks that lie ahead of us with AI technology (I may really need to appeal to visuals and hypothetical experiences, like an AI personality museum!).
2.
Plausible Actions/Reactions to Reading My Argument: Readers may feel/act/react...
Not Plausible Reactions to Reading My Argument: Readers will not likely feel/act/react...
In this blog entry, I will respond to the questions on purpose as posed in Writing Public Lives in order to gain a better understanding of how I want to construct my public debate and what message I want it to drive. In doing so, I will clearly see what I want to accomplish with my argument.
 |
| godserv, "Got Purpose? - Sermon Title" 13 April 2010 via flickr.com. Attribution Noncommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) License. |
2.
Plausible Actions/Reactions to Reading My Argument: Readers may feel/act/react...
- Excited for AI technology
- A change in their apprehension over AI research and development to anticipation
- Adopt my perspective and consider new technologies for both scientific and artistic value
- Spread my thoughts to others
- Appreciate other pro-AI arguments more, with this perspective supporting them somewhat
- ALTERNATIVELY, readers may reject my views if they don't think artistic value matches or compares at all to other applications of AI such as to the world economy (job automation, for example) that they are concerned about
Not Plausible Reactions to Reading My Argument: Readers will not likely feel/act/react...
- Depressed over the technology - my argument will either excite or anger, I feel
- Reconsider guideline strictness over AI research and development, as my argument will be more focused on how people will use the technology and not how it will be developed
3. Results from plausible effects (in order)...
- Readers excited for AI technology will likely become advocates for its development and may even argue for it publicly
- Eased fears in readers will allow them to appreciate the positive potential of the technology
- Readers who now consider technologies for scientific and artistic value may have a totally new outlook both on new and existing technologies
- Readers that spread my thoughts/argument to others will propagate more plausible reactions
- Readers that identify more with pro-AI arguments may become more accepting of non-artistically oriented arguments as they will have "entered" the pro-AI viewpoint through my argument, but may encounter and embrace other arguments advocating for the technology
- Readers who reject my argument may use it as ammunition to claim that excitement over AI technology is misguided and not focused on the topics that they care about
4. People who are most likely to adopt my viewpoint as described in my public argument will be people who can appreciate a fuller perspective of technological impacts on society, and artists. I imagine that people who may be frustrated with the approaches current pro-AI arguments are taking might identify with my argument because it is so different and (humbly) unique, and thus they might resonate well with it given that other methods of arguing have not reached them. Additionally, artists who might be apprehensive about science and technology may not appreciate the larger picture of AI's impact as it could become a new artistic medium, and thus those people might become AI advocates themselves as they could identify with my argument specifically, which lies among the various pro-AI arguments out there.
Analyzing Context
Assessing the Context of My Public Debate
In this post, I will perform a guided analysis exercise by responding directly to questions from Writing of Public Lives Chp. 12. In doing so, I will learn more about the context of my debate and thus be able to more confidently construct my public argument on artificial intelligence.
1. Primarily, the two perspectives on my controversy of artificial intelligence research and development are those of fear, and those of confidence. While I may be oversimplifying the two sides, most every article or opinion I've encountered that discusses the issue is either voicing concerns and apprehensions over AI, or is trying to convince others of and declare their own faith in scientific advancement. There are some in-betweens, so to speak, as is the case with Cecillia Tilli in her article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" at slate.com's Future Tense: The Citizen's Guide to the Future, which states the legitimate concerns of strong AI in our society, while ultimately convincing her readers to be confident in, yet cautious of, AI as it is developed. However, I believe that most people involved in this debate are experiencing fears, excitement, or both.
2. The main point of contention between the two perspectives stated above whether or not artificial intelligence will benefit our society, and further, if humans will be able to control it responsibly. All other disagreements between the two outlooks stem from that fundamental opinion. For example, some people are fearful of AI as they will very likely automatize a large portion of jobs, thus negatively impacting the economy, while those people's counterparts might argue that this increased efficiency will do more good than harm. Similarly, those who dislike the potential AI prevalence in our future society worry that AI will supersede humans due to evolutionary differences should AI become self-controlling (Stephen Hawking), while others believe that this would be highly improbable and humans would remain in control of their technology. There are minor disagreements between the two groups involved in the debate, but those above are the majority of the main discourses the two sides argue over.
3. If the two groups were to agree on anything, it's that we as a society, both in America and across the world, still have time to dictate what pace and temperament we will assume as we march forward, potentially towards the birth of superior AI in 2045. Thus, both groups are currently arguing as now is the time to establish our method and guidelines of AI development. Additionally, both groups may agree that artificial intelligence is a leap forward in scientific creation, although they may disagree on how it may be used. In other words, both groups likely regard AI as an advancement, but disagree on how it should affect our future.
4. Ultimately, as discussed above, the ideological differences between the two perspectives are that those who disapprove or are afraid of AI believe that it will do more harm than good in our future society and may be tooled for wrong doing, while AI advocates believe the benefits and opportunities brought forth by such a technology will far outweigh any consequences that may arise from its development, and thus AI should be developed with a focus. Again, though, I'm oversimplifying - some people involved in the debate acknowledge the fears over AI while also believing in the positive potential of the technology.
5. Those who would likely identify as being against AI would likely urge caution or even resistance towards the development of AI, demanding strict guidelines for research and development of the technology or a removal of resources or scientific focus from the technology. Advocates for AI's creation would likely encourage confidence in the development of the technology, and excitement and planning for its applications to multiple fields in the future such as medicine, business, logistics, etc. Some if not most advocates for AI development may still promote caution and, of course, guidelines for the research of it, however.
6. Honestly, I will be assuming the position of pro-AI development thinker in my public argument, and thus I will try to focus on similar perspectives that promote the positive potential of AI in our future. Using these perspectives as a spring-board, I plan to take their confidence in the technology and add my own views to the debate which will also advocate for artificial intelligence being an active component in our future society. However, I will try to acknowledge, to some degree, the fears of those who might not share my views, so that I may convince them of my own more effectively by understanding their apprehensions.
7. Purely negative, anti-AI perspectives as well as industrial utilitarian- or economically-focused perspectives on AI will likely threaten my argument, as I will discuss everyday applications of AI with attention to art, which people who are concerned with industrial uses for or economic effects of artificial intelligence may not receive well.
In this post, I will perform a guided analysis exercise by responding directly to questions from Writing of Public Lives Chp. 12. In doing so, I will learn more about the context of my debate and thus be able to more confidently construct my public argument on artificial intelligence.
 |
| Mika Lorenzen "Screenshot of Chapter 12 from Writing Public Lives" 2 November 2015 via google drive. Creator Usage of Screenshot, taken from provided class material of Christopher Minnix's "Audiences and Opportunities: How to Use Research and Rhetorical Analysis to Get Your Voice Heard." |
2. The main point of contention between the two perspectives stated above whether or not artificial intelligence will benefit our society, and further, if humans will be able to control it responsibly. All other disagreements between the two outlooks stem from that fundamental opinion. For example, some people are fearful of AI as they will very likely automatize a large portion of jobs, thus negatively impacting the economy, while those people's counterparts might argue that this increased efficiency will do more good than harm. Similarly, those who dislike the potential AI prevalence in our future society worry that AI will supersede humans due to evolutionary differences should AI become self-controlling (Stephen Hawking), while others believe that this would be highly improbable and humans would remain in control of their technology. There are minor disagreements between the two groups involved in the debate, but those above are the majority of the main discourses the two sides argue over.
3. If the two groups were to agree on anything, it's that we as a society, both in America and across the world, still have time to dictate what pace and temperament we will assume as we march forward, potentially towards the birth of superior AI in 2045. Thus, both groups are currently arguing as now is the time to establish our method and guidelines of AI development. Additionally, both groups may agree that artificial intelligence is a leap forward in scientific creation, although they may disagree on how it may be used. In other words, both groups likely regard AI as an advancement, but disagree on how it should affect our future.
4. Ultimately, as discussed above, the ideological differences between the two perspectives are that those who disapprove or are afraid of AI believe that it will do more harm than good in our future society and may be tooled for wrong doing, while AI advocates believe the benefits and opportunities brought forth by such a technology will far outweigh any consequences that may arise from its development, and thus AI should be developed with a focus. Again, though, I'm oversimplifying - some people involved in the debate acknowledge the fears over AI while also believing in the positive potential of the technology.
5. Those who would likely identify as being against AI would likely urge caution or even resistance towards the development of AI, demanding strict guidelines for research and development of the technology or a removal of resources or scientific focus from the technology. Advocates for AI's creation would likely encourage confidence in the development of the technology, and excitement and planning for its applications to multiple fields in the future such as medicine, business, logistics, etc. Some if not most advocates for AI development may still promote caution and, of course, guidelines for the research of it, however.
6. Honestly, I will be assuming the position of pro-AI development thinker in my public argument, and thus I will try to focus on similar perspectives that promote the positive potential of AI in our future. Using these perspectives as a spring-board, I plan to take their confidence in the technology and add my own views to the debate which will also advocate for artificial intelligence being an active component in our future society. However, I will try to acknowledge, to some degree, the fears of those who might not share my views, so that I may convince them of my own more effectively by understanding their apprehensions.
7. Purely negative, anti-AI perspectives as well as industrial utilitarian- or economically-focused perspectives on AI will likely threaten my argument, as I will discuss everyday applications of AI with attention to art, which people who are concerned with industrial uses for or economic effects of artificial intelligence may not receive well.
Audience and Genre
Defining The Audience and Genre for My Public Argument
In this post, I will try to define for myself what people will be interested in hearing about my research questions in the controversy of artificial intelligence, why they will be interested, and where they will go to find my public argument in addition to what they'll do with my argument.
One group who I believe will be the audience for my public debate is skeptics of artificial intelligence. I believe people who are skeptical over AI's place in our society's future due to their fears over the technology will be interested in my public argument because I will be trying to pose a new outlook on AI that will ultimately be in an attempt to convince them that the advancement and development of AI tech is progress that we should be excited for.
The other group who I think will be an audience to my public debate is artists. Specifically, I think artists who are either excited and searching for new media to work in or who are skeptical that AI could be a legitimate artistic medium will both be the audiences of my argument because I will be founding my public argument on art and how it will apply to AI to create new artistic potential. I will need to keep in mind that not all artists may agree or disagree with me, so I will have to present my argument with a sense of open-minded excitement and confidence.
In this post, I will try to define for myself what people will be interested in hearing about my research questions in the controversy of artificial intelligence, why they will be interested, and where they will go to find my public argument in addition to what they'll do with my argument.
 |
| Mika Lorenzen "Screenshot of Sculpting Plasma as Seen on Leonardo.info" 2 November 2015 via leonardo.info. Creator Usage of Screenshot, taken of the free sample article "Sculpting Ionized Plasma" by Jean-Louis Lhermitte. |
One group who I believe will be the audience for my public debate is skeptics of artificial intelligence. I believe people who are skeptical over AI's place in our society's future due to their fears over the technology will be interested in my public argument because I will be trying to pose a new outlook on AI that will ultimately be in an attempt to convince them that the advancement and development of AI tech is progress that we should be excited for.
- I think that wired.com will be a place I could publish my argument. To publish on wired.com, I would have to create an article with limited visual elements that mostly speaks about how AI will affect our society, as wired.com is an online magazine that discusses how new technologies will influence cultures, politics, and economies.
- Here is an example of a wired.com article called "Connecting the Poor Is the Best Hope for Ending Poverty."
- Here is another example of an article from wired.com called "The Upside of Artificial Intelligence Development."
- I think that slate.com will be a potential location to publish my public argument on. While slate.com publishes short, argumentative articles across a variety of topics such as economics, politics, and even opinion articles, a new project with Slate, New America, and Arizona State University and called Future Tense: The Citizen's Guide to the Future is a subsidiary online news source from slate.com that discusses how current technologies will impact our society and our lives in the future.
- This article on AI, "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," is from Future Tense.
- This article about the future use of Mars' recently-discovered water called "If There Is Water on Mars, Who Gets to Use It?" is also from the Future Tense project.
The other group who I think will be an audience to my public debate is artists. Specifically, I think artists who are either excited and searching for new media to work in or who are skeptical that AI could be a legitimate artistic medium will both be the audiences of my argument because I will be founding my public argument on art and how it will apply to AI to create new artistic potential. I will need to keep in mind that not all artists may agree or disagree with me, so I will have to present my argument with a sense of open-minded excitement and confidence.
- I think that Discover magazine, specifically the online magazine, will be a place I could publish my argument on artificial intelligence with respect to art. Discover is a general science magazine, but does have specific tags for "art and technology" that display how technology can be used for art. These articles are very image-heavy, and have less text and are in a slideshow-like presentation on the webpage.
- Potentially, I could publish my public argument at the Leonardo Journal, which is associated with the MIT Press. While this genre would be much more formal, as I'm unsure if it has opinion pieces, the types of articles seen on Leonardo directly discuss how new technologies can lead to unique and even unorthodox art forms, which would fit my topic of AI as an artistic medium.
Extended Annotated Bibliography
Searching For Answers: My Hunt for Sources on the AI Controversy
In this blog entry, I will include a link to a google document that has my extended annotated bibliography that includes sources that helped me find answers to my questions which I posed in the previous blog post.
Here is the link to my work!
In this blog entry, I will include a link to a google document that has my extended annotated bibliography that includes sources that helped me find answers to my questions which I posed in the previous blog post.
 |
| Mika Lorenzen, "Screenshot of Annotated Bibliography" 2 November 2015 via google drive. Creator usage. |
Here is the link to my work!
Narrowing My Focus
Specifying The Need-To-Knows
In this blog entry, I will identify what questions of the list I generated in my previous post will be most useful to me as I develop my argument for this project.
I selected the following three questions to focus on as I develop my argument:
Who are the specific people/groups speaking out against artificial intelligence research?
I think that I should try to ask this question initially, because from what I know on the controversy, there are famous researchers in favor of developing AI, but I am not aware of what groups are opposing that development and research. From what I've heard on the issue, there are people who are fearful of and are opposing AI advancements, but I simply do not know who they are. Hopefully, in finding out what specific people are against AI in this controversy, I can discover what their fears and reasoning are so that I may better address, or at least reference them, to show that I understand the controversy and can construct my argument around that knowledge.
Are the people involved in this public argument over artificial intelligence considering the artistic potential of the technology?
The primary focus of my public argument will be about art factoring into the discussion and debate over artificial intelligence, so I think it will be vital to find out if this topic has been discussed elsewhere or if it's a fairly unknown/ignored viewpoint on the controversy. If I find that this idea has been discussed, that will largely influence how I design my argument, because I will likely do best by referencing and replying to those discussions. However, if I find my topic hasn't been covered in this debate, I will have to frame it as though it is a profound and completely new way of looking at and analyzing the controversy over AI and the public's feelings towards the technology.
When do researchers and developers believe AI technology will be "ready," or in other words, in a form that fits our currently imagined standards for the technology?
I think that, although this question could be answered with a simple time frame, it will serve to make me aware of how near in the future AI will be realized, and knowing that, I can construct my argument with that timeline in mind (I plan to discuss both first production and everyday prevalence). I may encounter conflicting estimates and definitions of "ready" as I research however, and have to consider these differences as I seek an answer to this question.
In this blog entry, I will identify what questions of the list I generated in my previous post will be most useful to me as I develop my argument for this project.
 |
| ClkerFreeVectorImages "Narrows-Warnings-Roadsigns-Signs" 2012 via pixabay.com. Public Domain CC0 License. |
Who are the specific people/groups speaking out against artificial intelligence research?
I think that I should try to ask this question initially, because from what I know on the controversy, there are famous researchers in favor of developing AI, but I am not aware of what groups are opposing that development and research. From what I've heard on the issue, there are people who are fearful of and are opposing AI advancements, but I simply do not know who they are. Hopefully, in finding out what specific people are against AI in this controversy, I can discover what their fears and reasoning are so that I may better address, or at least reference them, to show that I understand the controversy and can construct my argument around that knowledge.
Are the people involved in this public argument over artificial intelligence considering the artistic potential of the technology?
The primary focus of my public argument will be about art factoring into the discussion and debate over artificial intelligence, so I think it will be vital to find out if this topic has been discussed elsewhere or if it's a fairly unknown/ignored viewpoint on the controversy. If I find that this idea has been discussed, that will largely influence how I design my argument, because I will likely do best by referencing and replying to those discussions. However, if I find my topic hasn't been covered in this debate, I will have to frame it as though it is a profound and completely new way of looking at and analyzing the controversy over AI and the public's feelings towards the technology.
When do researchers and developers believe AI technology will be "ready," or in other words, in a form that fits our currently imagined standards for the technology?
I think that, although this question could be answered with a simple time frame, it will serve to make me aware of how near in the future AI will be realized, and knowing that, I can construct my argument with that timeline in mind (I plan to discuss both first production and everyday prevalence). I may encounter conflicting estimates and definitions of "ready" as I research however, and have to consider these differences as I seek an answer to this question.
Questions About Controversy
Thinking Critically About Artificial Intelligence Controversy
In this blog post, I will pose critical questions about my controversy to help understand what areas of the debate over artificial intelligence its development (my Project 2 controversy) I will need to learn more about and investigate.
Below are my posed questions about public debate on artificial intelligence that will help me clarify what I may need to know before making my own argument:
In this blog post, I will pose critical questions about my controversy to help understand what areas of the debate over artificial intelligence its development (my Project 2 controversy) I will need to learn more about and investigate.
 |
| Cade Martin, Dawn Arlotta, USCDCP "African American man was one of a number of attendees to a town hall meeting public domain image" February 2015 via public-domain-image.com. Public Domain CC0 License. |
Below are my posed questions about public debate on artificial intelligence that will help me clarify what I may need to know before making my own argument:
- Identifying things I need to learn about WHO is involved in the controversy:
- What are the stances of recognized, leading scientific thinkers such as Stephen Hawking or Elon Musk on the issue?
- Who are the people/persons that are specifically speaking out against AI?
- Are there any groups who are actively speaking against AI development, or not?
- Identifying things I need to learn about WHAT is up for debate in this controversy.
- Do people involved in this debate fear the technology itself or the people who will use it?
- Are people in this public argument considering the domestic potential of this technology (ex. everyday uses, common presence)?
- Are people in this public argument considering the artistic potential of this technology?
- Identifying things I need to learn about WHEN this controversy has unfolded (and the larger contextual details of that time period that may be relevant).
- When was the first mention of artificial intelligence in various media?
- When was the first official development of AI technology started?
- When do researchers believe AI technology will be "ready," or in other words, in a form that fits the standards imagined in our current day?
- Identifying things I need to learn about WHERE this controversy has unfolded - and I mean both physical spaces and cultural spaces.
- What countries or places in the world is AI technology development taking place?
- Is the debate over AI development primarily American? Is it taking place elsewhere?
- Where have AI advancements already been made?
- Identifying things I need to learn about HOW this controversy has unfolded in the media (including general popular media, scholarly media and social media).
- How did the first problems with AI technology arise (with what medium, what was it in response to)?
- How has anti-AI development sentiment grown recently, if it has?
- How has AI development advanced recently and how has the media reacted?
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Final Draft of Project 2
Final Draft of the Rhetorical Analysis Essay
I completed my final draft for the Project 2 Rhetorical Analysis Essay!
Here is the link to the draft, submitted for grading!
I completed my final draft for the Project 2 Rhetorical Analysis Essay!
Here is the link to the draft, submitted for grading!
 |
| Lorenzen, Mika "Screenshot of RA Essay" 25 October 2015 via Google Drive. Creator usage. |
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Paragraph Analysis 2
Analyzing My Essay
For this blog entry, I copied my draft for my rhetorical analysis essay into a separate location, where I then commented on it as I performed an analysis of my how well organized and effective my paragraphs were.
My draft analysis can be found here.
What I learned from this exercise was that I definitely have strengths and flaws in my writing of the draft for this project. I think the strength in my writing was that I was thorough and made sure to connect claims to evidence, or examples to explanations, as I wrote my paragraphs. Overall, I actually think my individual paragraphs had purpose and were cohesive, and usually related back to my thesis and gave it the expanded meaning that the essay should develop.
However, the exceptions to my strengths were that one of my paragraphs may actually have been confusingly organized, which may have impeded both its cohesiveness and its relation to my thesis (as my peer reviewers did also point out). In general, I think I structured all my paragraphs well with a clear progression from information or evidence to explanation and clarification, but my paragraph that discussed my author's emotionally soothing tone and her use of qualification may have been misleading and confusing. While I think both of those strategies were used to accomplish the author's common goal of reaching the reader and showing that she understands their perspective, my paragraph did seem somewhat disjointed and didn't communicate this connection between emotional and credibility appeal as well as it could have.
I think this exercise has helped me identify organizational issues that need to be addressed my draft, that I be sure to remedy as I approach my final product.
For this blog entry, I copied my draft for my rhetorical analysis essay into a separate location, where I then commented on it as I performed an analysis of my how well organized and effective my paragraphs were.
My draft analysis can be found here.
 |
| Tyler "MacBook Pro Keyboard" 13 August 2010 via flickr.com. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. |
What I learned from this exercise was that I definitely have strengths and flaws in my writing of the draft for this project. I think the strength in my writing was that I was thorough and made sure to connect claims to evidence, or examples to explanations, as I wrote my paragraphs. Overall, I actually think my individual paragraphs had purpose and were cohesive, and usually related back to my thesis and gave it the expanded meaning that the essay should develop.
However, the exceptions to my strengths were that one of my paragraphs may actually have been confusingly organized, which may have impeded both its cohesiveness and its relation to my thesis (as my peer reviewers did also point out). In general, I think I structured all my paragraphs well with a clear progression from information or evidence to explanation and clarification, but my paragraph that discussed my author's emotionally soothing tone and her use of qualification may have been misleading and confusing. While I think both of those strategies were used to accomplish the author's common goal of reaching the reader and showing that she understands their perspective, my paragraph did seem somewhat disjointed and didn't communicate this connection between emotional and credibility appeal as well as it could have.
I think this exercise has helped me identify organizational issues that need to be addressed my draft, that I be sure to remedy as I approach my final product.
Revised Conclusion
Work It Harder, Make It Stronger
For this blog post, I tried my hand at writing a new conclusion paragraph for my rhetorical analysis essay.
I tried to make my new conclusion more successful and effective by emphasizing two main focuses: a cohesive overview of my analysis, and a statement of why examining rhetoric in a computer science context is important. While I know I am supposed to avoid a summary of claims, and I'm wary that I may have gone too far, I felt that it was useful to describe in an overview how my selected text's author approached conveying her argument (I may cut down on this in the final draft). However, I also included a section that mentioned the effects powerful rhetoric can have in my field, which I feel spoke well to my audience and prompt, though I could maybe expand that a little more.
I may decide to do a two paragraph conclusion, actually, and split the summary and "so what?" elements.
Below is my OLD (previous) conclusion:
Ultimately, most of Tilli's rhetorical approaches to her argument enhance the message of her text, as she effectively creates a common understanding with the reader through appreciating America’s cultural tendencies towards fear over AI and legitimate dangers such technology presents, while simultaneously establishing herself as an expert a reader can relate to and trust. This situation that she places herself in allows Tilli to effectively convince the reader of her perspective and beliefs on the topic of AI research safety, as she becomes a respectable, trustworthy speaker through her collected tone and presence of qualifying statements. By the end of her article, Tilli becomes a figure that the reader can trust in, relate to, and follow because she maintains the non-aggressive, logical stance that artificial technology must be treated with due caution, but must still make progress because that technology has the potential to benefit humanity on an unprecedented level (Tilli). Overall, Tilli’s argument is highly effective in convincing the reader of her view, as it speaks directly to her audience within the context of the controversy over AI, and is constructed from references to America’s cultural and economic history, appeals logic and authority, and an inclusive, reassuring tone that seeks to instill a careful confidence in AI technology within the reader.
Below is my NEW attempt at a conclusion:
In examining Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," we can see that she constructed a thorough, effective argument through using specific methods and appeals to her audience. Tilli not only wrote her article within her rhetorical context, but she built her argument to operate within it by being fully aware that her audience, based on the history of American culture, is not readily accepting of AI technology and its realization in the near future. By acknowledging this perspective and establishing herself as an expert personally involved with the controversy over AI, Tilli connected to her readers and could speak more directly to them. Tilli then actively strengthened this connection by qualifying her argument to help include her readers in her argument while she assumed a calm, reassuring tone to ease her readers into her reasoning. However, as she discussed the great potential of AI technology, Tilli also paid attention to its possible consequences and referenced economic statistics on job automation that spoke to America's recent history of economic hardship, as she also cited a book on the future of artificial intelligence, which was somewhat inaccessible for audience, to a lesser effect. Through her connection to her audience and her balancing of faith and wariness over AI research, Tilli masterfully instilled a careful confidence in her readers that moved them to understand, and likely assume, Tilli's philosophy on AI development. In inspecting her rhetoric, we can now see the importance of how speakers and thinkers in our field of computer science may craft arguments to discuss technologies and inventions that may sway public opinion and even decide how the masses will embrace - or reject - the innovations we will create in the future.
For this blog post, I tried my hand at writing a new conclusion paragraph for my rhetorical analysis essay.
I tried to make my new conclusion more successful and effective by emphasizing two main focuses: a cohesive overview of my analysis, and a statement of why examining rhetoric in a computer science context is important. While I know I am supposed to avoid a summary of claims, and I'm wary that I may have gone too far, I felt that it was useful to describe in an overview how my selected text's author approached conveying her argument (I may cut down on this in the final draft). However, I also included a section that mentioned the effects powerful rhetoric can have in my field, which I feel spoke well to my audience and prompt, though I could maybe expand that a little more.
I may decide to do a two paragraph conclusion, actually, and split the summary and "so what?" elements.
 |
| M1-L3C "CONCLUSION" 27 November 2013 via wikimedia.org. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. |
Ultimately, most of Tilli's rhetorical approaches to her argument enhance the message of her text, as she effectively creates a common understanding with the reader through appreciating America’s cultural tendencies towards fear over AI and legitimate dangers such technology presents, while simultaneously establishing herself as an expert a reader can relate to and trust. This situation that she places herself in allows Tilli to effectively convince the reader of her perspective and beliefs on the topic of AI research safety, as she becomes a respectable, trustworthy speaker through her collected tone and presence of qualifying statements. By the end of her article, Tilli becomes a figure that the reader can trust in, relate to, and follow because she maintains the non-aggressive, logical stance that artificial technology must be treated with due caution, but must still make progress because that technology has the potential to benefit humanity on an unprecedented level (Tilli). Overall, Tilli’s argument is highly effective in convincing the reader of her view, as it speaks directly to her audience within the context of the controversy over AI, and is constructed from references to America’s cultural and economic history, appeals logic and authority, and an inclusive, reassuring tone that seeks to instill a careful confidence in AI technology within the reader.
Below is my NEW attempt at a conclusion:
In examining Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," we can see that she constructed a thorough, effective argument through using specific methods and appeals to her audience. Tilli not only wrote her article within her rhetorical context, but she built her argument to operate within it by being fully aware that her audience, based on the history of American culture, is not readily accepting of AI technology and its realization in the near future. By acknowledging this perspective and establishing herself as an expert personally involved with the controversy over AI, Tilli connected to her readers and could speak more directly to them. Tilli then actively strengthened this connection by qualifying her argument to help include her readers in her argument while she assumed a calm, reassuring tone to ease her readers into her reasoning. However, as she discussed the great potential of AI technology, Tilli also paid attention to its possible consequences and referenced economic statistics on job automation that spoke to America's recent history of economic hardship, as she also cited a book on the future of artificial intelligence, which was somewhat inaccessible for audience, to a lesser effect. Through her connection to her audience and her balancing of faith and wariness over AI research, Tilli masterfully instilled a careful confidence in her readers that moved them to understand, and likely assume, Tilli's philosophy on AI development. In inspecting her rhetoric, we can now see the importance of how speakers and thinkers in our field of computer science may craft arguments to discuss technologies and inventions that may sway public opinion and even decide how the masses will embrace - or reject - the innovations we will create in the future.
Revised Introduction
Toss It Out, Make It Better
For this blog post, I completely wrote my introduction to my rhetorical analysis essay over again.
I feel that my new introduction is more successful because, chiefly, I think it addresses the prompt of my essay more directly and speaks to my audience much better than the previous version. Additionally, I think I cleared up how the rhetorical situation of America's culture history was used by the author of my text in order to achieve her argument. Lastly, I feel that I augmented my thesis by including a discussion on the author's use of logical statistics and references, to varying effects.
Below is my OLD (previous) introduction:
In a time where science is advancing by leaps and bounds and our ingenuity is only limited by the constraints of our imagination, tomorrow’s technology is today’s controversy. In the last hundred years, humans have invented the radio, film, television, automobiles, flight, and the internet, and soon enough, intelligences that will think for themselves. Following a conference spread across four days in January, 2015 that was held in Puerto Rico, claims have arisen across the news websites that our era’s leading thinkers and scientists are professing doom when presented with the topic of artificial intelligence. It is in this context that Dr. Cecilia Tilli writes her article on slate.com in response to such claims in a scientific landscape that is now realizing that artificial intelligence is within reach of development. Dr.Tilli, in her 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," directly addresses our culture's deep-held fears and misconceptions over artificial intelligence research and emphasizes confidence in cautious, steady progress in AI development. Throughout her article, Tilli references her own expertise in AI research and safety while also recalling our culture's history in order to effectively display her understanding of the controversy, which she expounds upon by employing a collected, reassuring tone to connect herself to the reader and successfully convince them of her beliefs that AI has a potential to benefit humanity in a way no technology has before.
And now provided is my NEW attempt at an introduction:
In our world of ever advancing science and boundless ingenuity, the technology of tomorrow is the controversy of our today. Mankind's progression through the last century has seen automobiles become race cars, propeller planes become orbital jets, the Internet become a global community, and now, humans are seeing artificial intelligence become a reality. The field of computer science has, over the course of the last century, increasingly become the leader of producing these historical technological changes, and now more than ever, it is vital to be able to understand and think critically about what computer scientists and researchers are saying about our future. We, as computer scientists, comprehend and process important claims about our developing field through assessing rhetorical arguments, which require us to understand both a text's context of writing and how it attempts to convey its message. For instance, in Dr. Tilli's 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," the author has her own motivations for writing her text, as well as the background situation and context she is responding to, all of which she addresses by employing rhetorical strategies to construct and communicate her argument. Tilli, as a reaction to misleading headlines in news sources reporting on an artificial intelligence research conference, writes to an American audience as she discusses our culture's long-held fears of future technology and convinces her readers to be confident in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) while still maintaining a degree of caution. Tilli conveys her argument effectively by establishing her knowledge of and authority on the controversy, employing a calming, collected tone while qualifying her argument, and by citing relatable economic statistics, while also drawing less effective references to writings on artificial intelligence.
For this blog post, I completely wrote my introduction to my rhetorical analysis essay over again.
I feel that my new introduction is more successful because, chiefly, I think it addresses the prompt of my essay more directly and speaks to my audience much better than the previous version. Additionally, I think I cleared up how the rhetorical situation of America's culture history was used by the author of my text in order to achieve her argument. Lastly, I feel that I augmented my thesis by including a discussion on the author's use of logical statistics and references, to varying effects.
 |
| penubag, "Ambox Rewrite Orange" 2008 April 29 via wikimedia.org. Public Domain License. |
Below is my OLD (previous) introduction:
In a time where science is advancing by leaps and bounds and our ingenuity is only limited by the constraints of our imagination, tomorrow’s technology is today’s controversy. In the last hundred years, humans have invented the radio, film, television, automobiles, flight, and the internet, and soon enough, intelligences that will think for themselves. Following a conference spread across four days in January, 2015 that was held in Puerto Rico, claims have arisen across the news websites that our era’s leading thinkers and scientists are professing doom when presented with the topic of artificial intelligence. It is in this context that Dr. Cecilia Tilli writes her article on slate.com in response to such claims in a scientific landscape that is now realizing that artificial intelligence is within reach of development. Dr.Tilli, in her 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," directly addresses our culture's deep-held fears and misconceptions over artificial intelligence research and emphasizes confidence in cautious, steady progress in AI development. Throughout her article, Tilli references her own expertise in AI research and safety while also recalling our culture's history in order to effectively display her understanding of the controversy, which she expounds upon by employing a collected, reassuring tone to connect herself to the reader and successfully convince them of her beliefs that AI has a potential to benefit humanity in a way no technology has before.
And now provided is my NEW attempt at an introduction:
In our world of ever advancing science and boundless ingenuity, the technology of tomorrow is the controversy of our today. Mankind's progression through the last century has seen automobiles become race cars, propeller planes become orbital jets, the Internet become a global community, and now, humans are seeing artificial intelligence become a reality. The field of computer science has, over the course of the last century, increasingly become the leader of producing these historical technological changes, and now more than ever, it is vital to be able to understand and think critically about what computer scientists and researchers are saying about our future. We, as computer scientists, comprehend and process important claims about our developing field through assessing rhetorical arguments, which require us to understand both a text's context of writing and how it attempts to convey its message. For instance, in Dr. Tilli's 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," the author has her own motivations for writing her text, as well as the background situation and context she is responding to, all of which she addresses by employing rhetorical strategies to construct and communicate her argument. Tilli, as a reaction to misleading headlines in news sources reporting on an artificial intelligence research conference, writes to an American audience as she discusses our culture's long-held fears of future technology and convinces her readers to be confident in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) while still maintaining a degree of caution. Tilli conveys her argument effectively by establishing her knowledge of and authority on the controversy, employing a calming, collected tone while qualifying her argument, and by citing relatable economic statistics, while also drawing less effective references to writings on artificial intelligence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)