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. |
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!
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.
Reflection on Project 2 Draft
Reflecting on the Rhetorical Analysis Essay
For peer review, I worked with Trey's and Mehruba's rhetorical analysis essays. Overall, I have to say the peer editing experience was beneficial in seeing how others approached the rhetorical analysis essay and it helped me see general strategies that worked for the writing of the essay that worked across different selected texts.
For peer review, I worked with Trey's and Mehruba's rhetorical analysis essays. Overall, I have to say the peer editing experience was beneficial in seeing how others approached the rhetorical analysis essay and it helped me see general strategies that worked for the writing of the essay that worked across different selected texts.
 |
| Reynolds, Paul "Kitten and Partial Reflection in Mirror" 13 May 2006 via wikimedia.org. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
- I did have an identifiable thesis that was clearly presented in my introduction paragraph. Both my peer reviewers noticed it and used it for direction in my essay. I made it a point to identify the specific strategies the author of my selected text used, such as how she referenced the current development of artificial intelligence and our American cultural history to establish her understanding of the controversy, and how she maintained a convincing and collected tone in her piece to ease her audience's fears. However, I did not discuss my author's use of statistics and references in my thesis, although they were her least effective strategies, but made a mistake in omitting such information because I did analyze those elements in the body of my essay.
- I organized my essay in fairly standard way: introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, of course. However, my body paragraphs each were (ideally) fluid and spoke well to each other while each having a main idea. My body paragraphs covered, in order, the rhetorical situation of the text and how the author was aware of it (I may need to make this more obviously a set up for the following paragraphs), the author's personal experience and authority over the topic, the author's tone and qualification of her argument, and her use of statistics and references as logos appeals. My second to last body paragraph, it seemed, may have been too packed as some of my peer reviewers thought it would be more focused if split into two paragraphs. All my paragraphs have sufficient evidence for their points, as my peer reviewers and I spotted no lack of such support.
- I think I, as my peer reviewers also noted, covered many important aspects of the text's rhetorical argument, as I discussed in detail the author's approach to her rhetorical situation, her establishment of credibility, her use of tone and qualification to position herself as a reasonable speaker, and her use of logical statistics and references.
- I also performed thorough explanations for why the author used the rhetorical strategies that she did. Additionally, by having a paragraph dedicated to explaining the rhetorical situation of the text, I feel that the analysis present in that section framed the usage of what strategies I discussed in the rest of the essay. Honestly, I think cohesiveness to my thesis and direction of my essay were the only weak spots in my essay (judging from peer review), while the individual parts of my essay worked well.
- As stated above, I think I supplied sufficient evidence and explanation for claims I made in my essay. I made sure no claim went without evidence, and my peer reviewers noted no areas of my analysis that lacked evidence. Rather, they noted the only flaws in my essay being its cohesiveness (which I think may be attributed to its length, as it's vital to maintain a consistent direction throughout all six pages).
- I think I do, somewhat, leave my reader wanting more. While I do consistently review my analysis in my conclusion and speak to a somewhat larger picture that my author was getting at, I don't think I effectively spoke to my audience and gave them the "so what?" they may be looking for.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Draft of Rhetorical Analysis
Caution and Confidence: An Analysis of Rhetorical Argument over Artificial Intelligence
In this post, I will include the link to my draft of the Project 2 essay for rhetorical analysis. I will also point out areas that I would like my peer editors to focus on as they perform peer review on my work.
My draft can be found here! It refers to this article.
Hey peer reviewers! I hope you all enjoy my draft, I put a lot of work into it. Before you read, you may want to glimpse over the article I refer to. Otherwise, I think the controversy over artificial intelligence is fairly easy to understand.
If you could, please look out to see if my paragraphs and ideas link together well and if my essay is cohesive. I pieced my essay together from past assignments (because I wrote them in such depth), but I worry that I didn't connect and link my passages together well. Please be honest!
Thanks so much in advance,
-Mika
In this post, I will include the link to my draft of the Project 2 essay for rhetorical analysis. I will also point out areas that I would like my peer editors to focus on as they perform peer review on my work.
 |
| Mika Lorenzen, "Screenshot of Draft" 17 October 2015 via Google Drive. Owner Usage. |
My draft can be found here! It refers to this article.
Hey peer reviewers! I hope you all enjoy my draft, I put a lot of work into it. Before you read, you may want to glimpse over the article I refer to. Otherwise, I think the controversy over artificial intelligence is fairly easy to understand.
If you could, please look out to see if my paragraphs and ideas link together well and if my essay is cohesive. I pieced my essay together from past assignments (because I wrote them in such depth), but I worry that I didn't connect and link my passages together well. Please be honest!
Thanks so much in advance,
-Mika
Cluster of "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence"
Mapping the Text's Use of Rhetorical Strategies, Situation, and Message
For this blog post, I used coggle.it to create a visual map of my text's usage of rhetorical strategies in addition an explanation of its rhetorical situation and cultural/ideological message. Included below is a link to my coggle map, and a brief explanation of how I constructed it.
You can find my visual map here.
For my visual map, I decided to follow the guidelines provided in the description for the assignment, creating three main branches: "Cultural Background of the Text," "Rhetorical Situation of the Text," and "Rhetorical Strategies Employed in the Text." From there, I developed very specific branches that explored each important aspect of my selected text and the author Tilli's construction of a rhetorical argument. I noticed that the cultural background and appeal to credibility sections were of the most substance, and should thus be the focuses of my essay.
For this blog post, I used coggle.it to create a visual map of my text's usage of rhetorical strategies in addition an explanation of its rhetorical situation and cultural/ideological message. Included below is a link to my coggle map, and a brief explanation of how I constructed it.
 |
| Mika Lorenzen, "Cluster Screenshot" 17 October 2015 via coggle.it. Owner usage. |
You can find my visual map here.
For my visual map, I decided to follow the guidelines provided in the description for the assignment, creating three main branches: "Cultural Background of the Text," "Rhetorical Situation of the Text," and "Rhetorical Strategies Employed in the Text." From there, I developed very specific branches that explored each important aspect of my selected text and the author Tilli's construction of a rhetorical argument. I noticed that the cultural background and appeal to credibility sections were of the most substance, and should thus be the focuses of my essay.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Practicing Summary and Paraphrase
Performing Summary and Paraphrasing with "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence"
In this post, I will use a passage I selected from Cecilia Tilli's article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" for practice in paraphrasing and summarizing. I will create a paraphrase to match the length and substance of the quote, and a summary that narrows the passage down into one main action and idea.
Original Source
From Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence,"
"Though the media mostly focus on Terminator–like scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that the path to strong A.I. is paved with uncertainty and that the correct attitude is one of caution, rather than plain optimism (or pessimism). In line with this, the open letter—signed by A.I. and A.I.–safety researchers alike—focuses mostly on the beneficial aspects of A.I. research, while also stressing the need to avoid 'potential pitfalls.'"
My Paraphrase of Original Source
As Cecilia Tilli tells us in her 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," our culture has a tendency to create fear over future technology like artificial intelligence by portraying such technology as dangerous (Tilli). However, Tilli insists that scientists, and people in general, should acknowledge the true, beneficial potential of artificial intelligence research and approach it with due caution, as those who signed the open letter from the Puerto Rico conference in January did, instead of viewing in the limiting black and white (Tilli).
My Summary of Original Source
Cecilia Tilli states in her 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" that the media has a tendency to portray artificial intelligence as dangerous, but in reality, it can benefit humanity greatly as long as researchers approach the technology with caution (Tilli).
In this post, I will use a passage I selected from Cecilia Tilli's article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" for practice in paraphrasing and summarizing. I will create a paraphrase to match the length and substance of the quote, and a summary that narrows the passage down into one main action and idea.
 |
| Mary St George "Practice Makes Progress" 13 August 2012 via flickr.com. Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) License. |
Original Source
From Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence,"
"Though the media mostly focus on Terminator–like scenarios, it is important to keep in mind that the path to strong A.I. is paved with uncertainty and that the correct attitude is one of caution, rather than plain optimism (or pessimism). In line with this, the open letter—signed by A.I. and A.I.–safety researchers alike—focuses mostly on the beneficial aspects of A.I. research, while also stressing the need to avoid 'potential pitfalls.'"
My Paraphrase of Original Source
As Cecilia Tilli tells us in her 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," our culture has a tendency to create fear over future technology like artificial intelligence by portraying such technology as dangerous (Tilli). However, Tilli insists that scientists, and people in general, should acknowledge the true, beneficial potential of artificial intelligence research and approach it with due caution, as those who signed the open letter from the Puerto Rico conference in January did, instead of viewing in the limiting black and white (Tilli).
My Summary of Original Source
Cecilia Tilli states in her 2015 article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" that the media has a tendency to portray artificial intelligence as dangerous, but in reality, it can benefit humanity greatly as long as researchers approach the technology with caution (Tilli).
Draft Thesis Statements
Crafting Working Thesis Statements for A Draft
In this post, I will create multiple thesis statements that could operate within my draft effectively. In doing so, I will explore different approaches to setting up my rhetorical analysis essay, and identify what makes for a strong thesis statement.
Thesis One:
Dr. Cecilia Tilli, in her article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," actively challenges and rectifies misunderstandings over leading scientists' attitudes towards artificial intelligence research following a high-profile conference in Puerto Rico in January this year. Tilli maintains a collected, gentle tone throughout her text to capitalize on the trust she establishes with the reader by explaining her connection to the controversy as an expert and safety specialist in order to relate to the cultural fears over such technology, with respect to the future of our society, and put them to rest.
This thesis contains most of the information that I want it to, but I feel that it is too verbose and cluttered which surrenders most of the direction it provides. While it does address Tilli's appeals to credibility and her tone, it only tangentially relates to her reference to culture which I feel would need to be represented more, as it will be a focus in the essay.
Thesis Two:
Dr. Cecilia Tilli in her article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" directly addresses the long-standing fears over artificial intelligence research held by our culture and rectifies them by appealing to the reader through her expertise in AI research and safety guidelines, and through referencing our cultural history with a focus on events such its past economic hardship and concern over global power. Tilli also employs a collected, reassuring tone to help connect to her readers and relate through a shared emphasis on caution, while ultimately arguing that AI research should continue with steady progress to achieve its greatest potential for humanity.
I feel that this thesis is effective at giving the text direction, but may be too wordy, which compromises its strengths. I did not include her reference to the January AI research conference, but feel that I succeeded here in included important direction to Tilli's focus on our culture.
Thesis Three:
Dr. Cecilia 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.
This thesis began as a revision of the second, but I feel it has become appreciably different and more effective. In this thesis, I feel as though I convey all the main points of my analysis (our culture, her appeal to credibility, her tone, her beliefs) while omitting non-essential information such as that on the context of her conference that she begins the article with.
I believe I will use this thesis in my essay draft.
Reflection
For my reflection, I read through the thesis statement drafts of Savannah and Dylan.
Dylan provided two thesis statements, both of which were very different in their approaches. One used several, short sentences to display a flow of logic that emphasized why Tarantino's appeal to character was effective, while the other was just a direct, concise, thesis that declared Tarantino's stance explicitly but didn't convey much else. I recommended he combine the two and refine it. This actually helped me because it reminded me of how I crafted a thesis I was comfortable with: I wrote two, and revised from one while including elements of the other that I felt belonged.
The best quality of Savannah's two thesis statements was that they were concise and provided no chances for confusion or misdirection in the reader. However, I feel as though they could've been more specific and given even more, clearer direction to the reader before the body of the text. I feel that this realization helped me feel more comfortable in my length thesis statements, because they did provide specific strategies and ideas that I will explore in my essay.
In this post, I will create multiple thesis statements that could operate within my draft effectively. In doing so, I will explore different approaches to setting up my rhetorical analysis essay, and identify what makes for a strong thesis statement.
 |
| geralt, "Intelligent artificial intelligence" 2014 via pixabay.com. CC0 Public Domain License. |
Dr. Cecilia Tilli, in her article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," actively challenges and rectifies misunderstandings over leading scientists' attitudes towards artificial intelligence research following a high-profile conference in Puerto Rico in January this year. Tilli maintains a collected, gentle tone throughout her text to capitalize on the trust she establishes with the reader by explaining her connection to the controversy as an expert and safety specialist in order to relate to the cultural fears over such technology, with respect to the future of our society, and put them to rest.
This thesis contains most of the information that I want it to, but I feel that it is too verbose and cluttered which surrenders most of the direction it provides. While it does address Tilli's appeals to credibility and her tone, it only tangentially relates to her reference to culture which I feel would need to be represented more, as it will be a focus in the essay.
Thesis Two:
Dr. Cecilia Tilli in her article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" directly addresses the long-standing fears over artificial intelligence research held by our culture and rectifies them by appealing to the reader through her expertise in AI research and safety guidelines, and through referencing our cultural history with a focus on events such its past economic hardship and concern over global power. Tilli also employs a collected, reassuring tone to help connect to her readers and relate through a shared emphasis on caution, while ultimately arguing that AI research should continue with steady progress to achieve its greatest potential for humanity.
I feel that this thesis is effective at giving the text direction, but may be too wordy, which compromises its strengths. I did not include her reference to the January AI research conference, but feel that I succeeded here in included important direction to Tilli's focus on our culture.
Thesis Three:
Dr. Cecilia 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.
This thesis began as a revision of the second, but I feel it has become appreciably different and more effective. In this thesis, I feel as though I convey all the main points of my analysis (our culture, her appeal to credibility, her tone, her beliefs) while omitting non-essential information such as that on the context of her conference that she begins the article with.
I believe I will use this thesis in my essay draft.
Reflection
For my reflection, I read through the thesis statement drafts of Savannah and Dylan.
Dylan provided two thesis statements, both of which were very different in their approaches. One used several, short sentences to display a flow of logic that emphasized why Tarantino's appeal to character was effective, while the other was just a direct, concise, thesis that declared Tarantino's stance explicitly but didn't convey much else. I recommended he combine the two and refine it. This actually helped me because it reminded me of how I crafted a thesis I was comfortable with: I wrote two, and revised from one while including elements of the other that I felt belonged.
The best quality of Savannah's two thesis statements was that they were concise and provided no chances for confusion or misdirection in the reader. However, I feel as though they could've been more specific and given even more, clearer direction to the reader before the body of the text. I feel that this realization helped me feel more comfortable in my length thesis statements, because they did provide specific strategies and ideas that I will explore in my essay.
Analyzing My Audience
Assessing the Audience of My Rhetorical Analysis Essay
In this post, I will analyze the intended audience of my essay about the rhetorical strategies used and rhetorical situation of Cecilia Tilli's article, "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence." This audience is not to be confused with the audience of the text I will be analyzing, which is completely different.
Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs and assumptions?
I am writing my rhetorical analysis for students in my field of interest (computer science) and who are in that major. These students also do not have a firm understanding of rhetorical analysis, and are struggling with developing skills necessary for reading an argument and deconstructing it for analysis. Thus, I am writing the essay to demonstrate how to perform a rhetorical analysis, with my example of an argument being Cecilia Tilli's article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" that appears on slate.com. My audience, then, has the belief that rhetorical analysis is important, difficult, and that they need to learn from my example on how to conduct such an analysis. Additionally, being computer science majors, my audience also values the study of computer science and its applications, and thus likely are interested in an argument that speaks on the research and development of artificial intelligence.
What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond on this issue?
If the issue in question is defined as me conducting a rhetorical analysis, then my audience will take the position of a dedicated reader, who is using my writing as an example of how to improve their own skills in rhetorical analysis. I will need to respond to this by ensuring that my rhetorical analysis thoroughly explains rhetorical strategies and their usages in my selected text, as my purpose of writing is to inform my audience on how rhetorical analysis is done and what is important in constructing one.
What will they want to know?
As stated above, my audience will want to know how to effectively write a rhetorical analysis, as they are struggling with writing one. They will want to know what rhetorical strategies are, and how they can be applied in the construction of an argument. Additionally, they will want to know how to examine and define the rhetorical situation of an argument, considering purpose, audience, author, and context.
How might they react to my argument?
The audience will react to my writing by using it as as example of an effective, well-done rhetorical analysis, and will likely study it to improve their own skills. As a result, I will need to ensure that my rhetorical analysis is informative and well-written.
How am I trying to relate to or connect with audience?
I am trying to relate to my audience through two methods. Firstly, I am attempting to assist them in constructing a rhetorical analysis, and thus I am trying to help them improve their writing skills. I am also going to be connecting with my audience by analyzing a text that relates to our shared field of Computer Science, which will be a discussion of research guidelines and ethics surrounding the development of artificial intelligence. This topic will hopefully appeal to my audience by interesting them, so as to make the learning of how to conduct a rhetorical analysis more intriguing and even fun (hopefully).
Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help relate to them in this way?
I think that keeping my essay focused on the construction of rhetorical analysis will be the best way to relate to my audience because, while the text I will be analyzing does have to do with Computer Science, my purpose of writing is not to inform my readers about the topic. My purpose in writing this analysis is to teach my audience, through example, what a rhetorical analysis should look like. I might also reach my audience more easily if I try to provide helpful and concise explanations for the effects of the applications of certain rhetorical strategies. Through these methods, I hope my readers will learn and benefit from my example.
Reflection
For my reflection on the quality of my above analysis, I read and examined those of Kelly and Brandon. I think that Kelly's analysis was similar to mine in that we both emphasized the purpose of our writing - to inform our readers on how to conduct a rhetorical analysis - and discussed how to reach our audience accordingly. Brandon, however, was mistaken in saying that the purpose was to construct a rhetorical argument in response to our selected texts, and I commented on his analysis to point out this issue. Otherwise, he had a very firm understanding of the content of his chosen text and of the shared ground between him and his readers, the neuroscience major.
After reading their analyses, I feel as though my analysis was accurate, useful, and of a good quality. It was helpful to write this assignment out because now I have a strong understanding of the purpose, and thus audience, of my essay.
In this post, I will analyze the intended audience of my essay about the rhetorical strategies used and rhetorical situation of Cecilia Tilli's article, "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence." This audience is not to be confused with the audience of the text I will be analyzing, which is completely different.
 |
| Burns Library, Boston College's photostream "Theater audience wearing 3-d glasses" 28 September 2010 via flickr.com. Atrribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) License. |
Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs and assumptions?
I am writing my rhetorical analysis for students in my field of interest (computer science) and who are in that major. These students also do not have a firm understanding of rhetorical analysis, and are struggling with developing skills necessary for reading an argument and deconstructing it for analysis. Thus, I am writing the essay to demonstrate how to perform a rhetorical analysis, with my example of an argument being Cecilia Tilli's article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" that appears on slate.com. My audience, then, has the belief that rhetorical analysis is important, difficult, and that they need to learn from my example on how to conduct such an analysis. Additionally, being computer science majors, my audience also values the study of computer science and its applications, and thus likely are interested in an argument that speaks on the research and development of artificial intelligence.
What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond on this issue?
If the issue in question is defined as me conducting a rhetorical analysis, then my audience will take the position of a dedicated reader, who is using my writing as an example of how to improve their own skills in rhetorical analysis. I will need to respond to this by ensuring that my rhetorical analysis thoroughly explains rhetorical strategies and their usages in my selected text, as my purpose of writing is to inform my audience on how rhetorical analysis is done and what is important in constructing one.
What will they want to know?
As stated above, my audience will want to know how to effectively write a rhetorical analysis, as they are struggling with writing one. They will want to know what rhetorical strategies are, and how they can be applied in the construction of an argument. Additionally, they will want to know how to examine and define the rhetorical situation of an argument, considering purpose, audience, author, and context.
How might they react to my argument?
The audience will react to my writing by using it as as example of an effective, well-done rhetorical analysis, and will likely study it to improve their own skills. As a result, I will need to ensure that my rhetorical analysis is informative and well-written.
How am I trying to relate to or connect with audience?
I am trying to relate to my audience through two methods. Firstly, I am attempting to assist them in constructing a rhetorical analysis, and thus I am trying to help them improve their writing skills. I am also going to be connecting with my audience by analyzing a text that relates to our shared field of Computer Science, which will be a discussion of research guidelines and ethics surrounding the development of artificial intelligence. This topic will hopefully appeal to my audience by interesting them, so as to make the learning of how to conduct a rhetorical analysis more intriguing and even fun (hopefully).
Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help relate to them in this way?
I think that keeping my essay focused on the construction of rhetorical analysis will be the best way to relate to my audience because, while the text I will be analyzing does have to do with Computer Science, my purpose of writing is not to inform my readers about the topic. My purpose in writing this analysis is to teach my audience, through example, what a rhetorical analysis should look like. I might also reach my audience more easily if I try to provide helpful and concise explanations for the effects of the applications of certain rhetorical strategies. Through these methods, I hope my readers will learn and benefit from my example.
Reflection
For my reflection on the quality of my above analysis, I read and examined those of Kelly and Brandon. I think that Kelly's analysis was similar to mine in that we both emphasized the purpose of our writing - to inform our readers on how to conduct a rhetorical analysis - and discussed how to reach our audience accordingly. Brandon, however, was mistaken in saying that the purpose was to construct a rhetorical argument in response to our selected texts, and I commented on his analysis to point out this issue. Otherwise, he had a very firm understanding of the content of his chosen text and of the shared ground between him and his readers, the neuroscience major.
After reading their analyses, I feel as though my analysis was accurate, useful, and of a good quality. It was helpful to write this assignment out because now I have a strong understanding of the purpose, and thus audience, of my essay.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence"
Rhetorical Strategies Active in Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence"
In this blog entry, I will discuss what rhetorical strategies are operating in Cecilia Tilli's article on artificial intelligence research and development. Specifically, I will inspect what strategies are used in the text to appeal to credibility, emotion, and logic within the readers.
Appeals to Credibility or Character:
The strategies that I recognized in my text that were mentioned in the list of appeals to credibility/character in the Student's Guide were a personal experience, information of the author's expertise, acknowledgment of counterarguments for qualification, and appeals to beliefs held by the audience.
Tilli began the article by saying that she "joined Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Lord Martin Rees and other artificial intelligence researchers..." for a signing of an open letter that was the result of their "four-day conference (held in Puerto Rico in January)." This statement is Tilli sharing her personal experience that directly relates to the topic of the piece to establish a personal connection to the topic, which works to create an authority and respect that operates for her with respect to the reader. Additionally, Tilli further expands this emphasis of her personal experience by stating her own expertise, telling the reader that she is "someone involved in A.I. safety research," in order to establish a level of credibility with the reader that permits her to speak her mind on the subject and have her opinions be seriously considered as valid.
Tilli also makes an active effort in her article to acknowledge legitimate concerns with AI research and development, by saying that such technology could lead to "general societal problems due to lack of work [from automation], extreme wealth inequality, and unbalanced global power," and thus researchers must be "mindful of A.I. downfalls" in order to be able to avoid them.
Another rhetorical strategy Tilli employs to create a connection through credibility with the reader is her reference to film culture and how that illustrates our society's predisposition towards being distrustful of AI technology, as she mentions the ideas of "real-life Terminators," "keeping Skynet at bay," "2001 Space Odyssey's Hal," and "Blade Runner's replicants." In doing so, Tilli draws on these films to illustrate beliefs that people of our culture, the reader included, are distrustful of AI. Using this understanding she has created with the reader, Tilli then clarifies and attempts to lay to rest fears over such AI technology through the emphasis of caution and progress in the development of such technology.
Ultimately I think all of Tilli's approaches mentioned above enhance the message of her text, as she effectively creates a common understanding with the reader through appreciating cultural tendencies towards fear over AI, while simultaneously establishing herself as an expert a reader can relate to and trust. This situation allows Tilli to effectively convince the reader of her perspective and beliefs on the topic of AI research safety, as she becomes a trustworthy, understanding speaker for the reader. I don't believe that Tilli's basic assumption that our culture perceives only fear and warning in the presence of anything short of purely positive discussion on AI development threatens her piece, as it is easy to agree with even if it does not apply to a specific reader to a great extent.
Appeals to Emotion:
In her text, it seems that Tilli relied very little on appeals to emotion in her audience. The only appeals to emotion that Tilli takes some advantage of are the repetition of words, level of formality and her gentle tone, though all of these strategies are limited in their usage and effect.
If any words are repeated for an effect in the text, they would be "safety" and "caution." Tilli does employ a repetition of these words, to a limited extent, in order to place the reader in a mood that evokes insecurity that is then promptly resolved through Tilli's reassurance that AI research is progressing with safety guidelines. However, this tactic on Tilli's part plays only a minor role in her text and works to a limited degree for the reader.
Additionally, Tilli maintains a moderate level of formality that accommodates her gentle, reassuring tone so that the reader will ultimately feel comfortable in trusting in Tilli's expertise and dispelling of other news sources' drastic and dramatic portrayals of the AI research meeting and its open letter. In her text, Tilli tackles what she states are inaccurate representations of true events and beliefs in a way that is not critical but rather highlights their falsehoods, while always remaining collected and speaking about her message. This strategy works well in the text, as her gentle tone is comforting and guides the reader, but does rely heavily on credibility that she established in her appeals to character.
Overall, Tilli's secondary focus on emotional rhetorical strategies work to support her credibility and thus allow trust to develop between her and the reader.
Appeals to Logic:
Tilli utilizes reference to statistics on job automation likelihoods and to a work that addresses the future of artificial intelligence technology, in addition to her clear and organized structure for her argument in order to convey her message in a logical, easily understood manner.
Tilli's only use of statistics is when she cites a study by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne that stated "47 percent of current U.S. jobs have a high probability of being automated by 2050, and a further 23 percent have a medium risk." Tilli uses this statistic to logically reach the fact that AI technology will very likely lead to automation and jobs and could potentially harm our society by creating "unemployment and inequality."
Tilli also references the work Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom of Oxford Martin School, in order to logically display the idea that an AI could eventually present challenges in its growing development, requiring its creators to carefully design what an AI's operating conduct and values should be in the event that an AI becomes a powerful tool capable of harming humanity without proper values put in place.
The purpose of these strategies and facts, however, relates back to Tilli's message that there are legitimate causes for caution in the development of artificial intelligence, and through a logical argument using these references, Tilli verifies that there are valid concerns in assessing the impact AI technology could have in our society out there, which she ultimately uses to support her argument that AI research and development must be treated with caution.
These specific appeals to logic function well, in my opinion, given that her audience is Americans, who belong to a nation that is still very conscious of its economy and state of its job market. While the reference to Superintelligence may not be as effective due to its lack of a clear connection to our day, it serves the purpose of illustrating to the text's audience that an AI must be designed carefully, so as to avoid such consequences as damaging America's economy or disrupting the global state of balance.
Reflection
I read the analyses of rhetorical strategies of Isabel and Trey, on their topics of electrical stimulation therapy and Department of Defense spending, respectively. Isabel's analysis actually reminded me of my own analysis, as both her and I's texts seemed to rely on appeals to credibility more than emotion, while still focusing on some appeals to logic. Primarily, the establishment of the author's expertise was a key rhetorical strategy that was shared in both our texts. Interestingly, Trey also stated that his text emphasized the author's expertise on the operations and spending of the Airforce, but that such an emphasis operated ineffectively as a rhetorical strategy. So, in reading these other analyses, I learned that appeals to character and credibility were popular choices amongst the texts selected by our class for analysis.
Additionally, I noticed that both Isabel and Trey noted that their texts utilized minimal appeals to emotion, or none at all. In this, I feel like I could relate to, because my text also didn't seem to focus on emotional appeal at first. However, I feel that I performed a thorough rhetorical analysis of my text because in re-reading it, I noticed that the author actually managed the reader's emotion throughout the piece, but did so in a purposely subtle way to allow her to calm and even soothe the reader's fears over AI technology and its development in our modern day.
In this blog entry, I will discuss what rhetorical strategies are operating in Cecilia Tilli's article on artificial intelligence research and development. Specifically, I will inspect what strategies are used in the text to appeal to credibility, emotion, and logic within the readers.
 |
| agsandrew "Emergence of Artificial Intelligence 0001" 1 July 2013 via deviantart.com. Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommerical-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. |
The strategies that I recognized in my text that were mentioned in the list of appeals to credibility/character in the Student's Guide were a personal experience, information of the author's expertise, acknowledgment of counterarguments for qualification, and appeals to beliefs held by the audience.
Tilli began the article by saying that she "joined Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Lord Martin Rees and other artificial intelligence researchers..." for a signing of an open letter that was the result of their "four-day conference (held in Puerto Rico in January)." This statement is Tilli sharing her personal experience that directly relates to the topic of the piece to establish a personal connection to the topic, which works to create an authority and respect that operates for her with respect to the reader. Additionally, Tilli further expands this emphasis of her personal experience by stating her own expertise, telling the reader that she is "someone involved in A.I. safety research," in order to establish a level of credibility with the reader that permits her to speak her mind on the subject and have her opinions be seriously considered as valid.
Tilli also makes an active effort in her article to acknowledge legitimate concerns with AI research and development, by saying that such technology could lead to "general societal problems due to lack of work [from automation], extreme wealth inequality, and unbalanced global power," and thus researchers must be "mindful of A.I. downfalls" in order to be able to avoid them.
Another rhetorical strategy Tilli employs to create a connection through credibility with the reader is her reference to film culture and how that illustrates our society's predisposition towards being distrustful of AI technology, as she mentions the ideas of "real-life Terminators," "keeping Skynet at bay," "2001 Space Odyssey's Hal," and "Blade Runner's replicants." In doing so, Tilli draws on these films to illustrate beliefs that people of our culture, the reader included, are distrustful of AI. Using this understanding she has created with the reader, Tilli then clarifies and attempts to lay to rest fears over such AI technology through the emphasis of caution and progress in the development of such technology.
Ultimately I think all of Tilli's approaches mentioned above enhance the message of her text, as she effectively creates a common understanding with the reader through appreciating cultural tendencies towards fear over AI, while simultaneously establishing herself as an expert a reader can relate to and trust. This situation allows Tilli to effectively convince the reader of her perspective and beliefs on the topic of AI research safety, as she becomes a trustworthy, understanding speaker for the reader. I don't believe that Tilli's basic assumption that our culture perceives only fear and warning in the presence of anything short of purely positive discussion on AI development threatens her piece, as it is easy to agree with even if it does not apply to a specific reader to a great extent.
Appeals to Emotion:
In her text, it seems that Tilli relied very little on appeals to emotion in her audience. The only appeals to emotion that Tilli takes some advantage of are the repetition of words, level of formality and her gentle tone, though all of these strategies are limited in their usage and effect.
If any words are repeated for an effect in the text, they would be "safety" and "caution." Tilli does employ a repetition of these words, to a limited extent, in order to place the reader in a mood that evokes insecurity that is then promptly resolved through Tilli's reassurance that AI research is progressing with safety guidelines. However, this tactic on Tilli's part plays only a minor role in her text and works to a limited degree for the reader.
Additionally, Tilli maintains a moderate level of formality that accommodates her gentle, reassuring tone so that the reader will ultimately feel comfortable in trusting in Tilli's expertise and dispelling of other news sources' drastic and dramatic portrayals of the AI research meeting and its open letter. In her text, Tilli tackles what she states are inaccurate representations of true events and beliefs in a way that is not critical but rather highlights their falsehoods, while always remaining collected and speaking about her message. This strategy works well in the text, as her gentle tone is comforting and guides the reader, but does rely heavily on credibility that she established in her appeals to character.
Overall, Tilli's secondary focus on emotional rhetorical strategies work to support her credibility and thus allow trust to develop between her and the reader.
Appeals to Logic:
Tilli utilizes reference to statistics on job automation likelihoods and to a work that addresses the future of artificial intelligence technology, in addition to her clear and organized structure for her argument in order to convey her message in a logical, easily understood manner.
Tilli's only use of statistics is when she cites a study by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne that stated "47 percent of current U.S. jobs have a high probability of being automated by 2050, and a further 23 percent have a medium risk." Tilli uses this statistic to logically reach the fact that AI technology will very likely lead to automation and jobs and could potentially harm our society by creating "unemployment and inequality."
Tilli also references the work Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom of Oxford Martin School, in order to logically display the idea that an AI could eventually present challenges in its growing development, requiring its creators to carefully design what an AI's operating conduct and values should be in the event that an AI becomes a powerful tool capable of harming humanity without proper values put in place.
The purpose of these strategies and facts, however, relates back to Tilli's message that there are legitimate causes for caution in the development of artificial intelligence, and through a logical argument using these references, Tilli verifies that there are valid concerns in assessing the impact AI technology could have in our society out there, which she ultimately uses to support her argument that AI research and development must be treated with caution.
These specific appeals to logic function well, in my opinion, given that her audience is Americans, who belong to a nation that is still very conscious of its economy and state of its job market. While the reference to Superintelligence may not be as effective due to its lack of a clear connection to our day, it serves the purpose of illustrating to the text's audience that an AI must be designed carefully, so as to avoid such consequences as damaging America's economy or disrupting the global state of balance.
Reflection
I read the analyses of rhetorical strategies of Isabel and Trey, on their topics of electrical stimulation therapy and Department of Defense spending, respectively. Isabel's analysis actually reminded me of my own analysis, as both her and I's texts seemed to rely on appeals to credibility more than emotion, while still focusing on some appeals to logic. Primarily, the establishment of the author's expertise was a key rhetorical strategy that was shared in both our texts. Interestingly, Trey also stated that his text emphasized the author's expertise on the operations and spending of the Airforce, but that such an emphasis operated ineffectively as a rhetorical strategy. So, in reading these other analyses, I learned that appeals to character and credibility were popular choices amongst the texts selected by our class for analysis.
Additionally, I noticed that both Isabel and Trey noted that their texts utilized minimal appeals to emotion, or none at all. In this, I feel like I could relate to, because my text also didn't seem to focus on emotional appeal at first. However, I feel that I performed a thorough rhetorical analysis of my text because in re-reading it, I noticed that the author actually managed the reader's emotion throughout the piece, but did so in a purposely subtle way to allow her to calm and even soothe the reader's fears over AI technology and its development in our modern day.
Analyzing Message in "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence"
Determining the Message and Purpose in Cecilia Tilli's Article on Artificial Intelligence
In this blog post, I will assess the message of my selected text and analyze its purpose. In doing so, I will be able to understand why the article was written and what it hopes to accomplish through its audience.
Of the bullet points listed on page 181 of Student's Guide to First Year Writing, several seemed useful in assessing my text's author's goals in the writing of her article.
I think that Cecilia Tilli is certainly responding to a specific event, which is the publishing of news articles by news sources that fuel the misconception of caution being fear in regards to artificial intelligence research. As Tilli stated herself, providing hyperlinks to specific articles as examples, the open letter that was the product of a research meeting in Puerto Rico in January this year was being mistaken as a fearful, doom-saying text when in reality it was only a promise by researchers to remain aware of the implications of their work as it becomes more and more realized through technology.
Thus, Tilli is also seeking to inform her readers of artificial intelligence research and its conduct, since the issue is being misunderstood currently. She insists that the caution being taken by the scientists working with artificial technology is for the purpose of being responsible and is in no way a proclamation of doom in our future by the the technology. In fact, Tilli provides numerous examples in our film culture that are evidence that our society is overly fearful of artificial intelligence technology, and while acknowledging its potential for harm, reassures the reader that the doctrine of caution is there to prevent those outcomes.
In so doing, Tilli is convincing her readers to not feel fearful, but hopeful and even excited for the development of artificial intelligence technology, as Tilli assures that it has safety guidelines for its development so that the technology will benefit mankind to the greatest extent possible, and in a responsible manner.
Tilli is not, in her article, reflecting or analyzing an event. As an active participant in the creation of research guidelines for AI, she is not discussing the topic in a critical way that would be characteristic of an analysis or reflection. Rather, she is advocating for an approach to treating the topic of AI research and for a change in how our culture responds to advances in the field.
Tilli's message that AI research should be conducting with caution, but not fear so as to spur its advancement with responsibility in mind, is nuanced in the sense that Tilli qualifies her message. Tilli concedes and even agrees with certain worries and anxieties over AI technology in her article, which adds a depth to her message because she ultimately uses these qualifications in a turn by saying that those very anxieties are being taken into account and handled carefully in the steady development of AI technology, so that there is thus nothing to fear as long as caution remains chiefly among research guidelines' doctrines.
In this blog post, I will assess the message of my selected text and analyze its purpose. In doing so, I will be able to understand why the article was written and what it hopes to accomplish through its audience.
 |
| Srinath66, "Message Srinath66" 8 February 2009 via wikimedia.org. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. |
I think that Cecilia Tilli is certainly responding to a specific event, which is the publishing of news articles by news sources that fuel the misconception of caution being fear in regards to artificial intelligence research. As Tilli stated herself, providing hyperlinks to specific articles as examples, the open letter that was the product of a research meeting in Puerto Rico in January this year was being mistaken as a fearful, doom-saying text when in reality it was only a promise by researchers to remain aware of the implications of their work as it becomes more and more realized through technology.
Thus, Tilli is also seeking to inform her readers of artificial intelligence research and its conduct, since the issue is being misunderstood currently. She insists that the caution being taken by the scientists working with artificial technology is for the purpose of being responsible and is in no way a proclamation of doom in our future by the the technology. In fact, Tilli provides numerous examples in our film culture that are evidence that our society is overly fearful of artificial intelligence technology, and while acknowledging its potential for harm, reassures the reader that the doctrine of caution is there to prevent those outcomes.
In so doing, Tilli is convincing her readers to not feel fearful, but hopeful and even excited for the development of artificial intelligence technology, as Tilli assures that it has safety guidelines for its development so that the technology will benefit mankind to the greatest extent possible, and in a responsible manner.
Tilli is not, in her article, reflecting or analyzing an event. As an active participant in the creation of research guidelines for AI, she is not discussing the topic in a critical way that would be characteristic of an analysis or reflection. Rather, she is advocating for an approach to treating the topic of AI research and for a change in how our culture responds to advances in the field.
Tilli's message that AI research should be conducting with caution, but not fear so as to spur its advancement with responsibility in mind, is nuanced in the sense that Tilli qualifies her message. Tilli concedes and even agrees with certain worries and anxieties over AI technology in her article, which adds a depth to her message because she ultimately uses these qualifications in a turn by saying that those very anxieties are being taken into account and handled carefully in the steady development of AI technology, so that there is thus nothing to fear as long as caution remains chiefly among research guidelines' doctrines.
Analyzing My Own Assumptions
Gaining an Understanding of My Own Cultural Assumptions
In this post, I will assess my own beliefs and values on artificial intelligence and developmental research of advanced technology in general. This post is written somewhat in response to my previous post, in which I discussed how Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" speaks to a cultural background.
1. I do not believe that I share the specific cultural fear of artificial intelligence addressed by Tilli in her text. I do not subscribe to the idea that artificial intelligence that humans create could become like Hal from 2001: Space Odyssey, a fear Tilli specifically mentioned in her article. However, I do have a fear of what humans could potentially do with such a technology, because as Tilli stated, such a powerful technology could legitimately shift global power if not developed probably and if programmed with arbitrary values that could target a group of other people in the world. Additionally, I honestly have to say that I identify with the evaluative cultural mindset that our society has toward technology, which emphasizes the value of utility. While I might try to appreciate technologies that don't have explicit purposes yet in their development, I simply appreciate scientific progress more when I can examine it through a utilitarian lens, and because of that I think I hold the very value that Tilli appeals to in her article. I think the prevalence of this value of usefulness mostly stems from the widespread presence of technology is today's society in which nearly every person has a personal computer, or a cell phone.
2. As stated above, I do not share the specific cultural value of distrusting the technology of artificial intelligence itself. While I do not think that the technology itself can be harmful or threatening, which many of our culturally-beloved films discuss and depict, I instead have a fear of what people can do with such technology. For example, the use of the discovery of nuclear fission is not dangerous, but what it was used for was destructive and worthy of fear, even (especially) today.
3. This piece was written in our own time and culture in the United States, and I think it accurately reflects the cultural values of utilitarianism in technology, as discussed above. However, I think this text uniquely examines artificial intelligence with a grander scope in mind than most would use in today's society. The article is part of a project, "Future Tense," which seeks to assess how technological discoveries made today will affect our society decades and even centuries in the future. Thus, I think this text does not reflect the mindset of immediacy that is so prevalent today, since most people are so concerned with the "now" in our fast-paced lives in which distance is minimized through technology. Rather, this piece seems to maintain a distance in its view of the development of artificial technology that leads to a unique perspective that otherwise may not be as easy to understand in our culture today.
4. This piece was written only seven months ago, so it is still very recent and relevant. I do not think that the cultural values referenced and addressed in the piece have changed in any significant way since then, although technologies using narrow artificial intelligence have grown, as self-driving cars are becoming realized now, indicating that the topic of Tilli's article is only becoming more and more important today.
Reflection
For my reflection, I read the works of Kelly and Trey for their analyses of their own cultural assumptions. In reading what they wrote, I noticed that they had varying degrees of agreement with their chosen texts. Kelly generally seemed to agree with her piece, but had specific points that she had different opinions on, such as the real effect of ice bathing for athletes' recovery. Trey, on the other hand, seemed to agree with his piece and had little against what it had to say on government spending in the military (Department of Defense).
What I learned from reading these analyses was that it's perfectly okay to disagree with your chosen text, and although I don't think this lesson will apply to my writing, I think it is an important one. In my case, I honestly agree to an almost complete extent with what my text's author had to say. but it may be helpful in my writing to stress qualifying points that I concede in agreeing with my chosen piece.
In this post, I will assess my own beliefs and values on artificial intelligence and developmental research of advanced technology in general. This post is written somewhat in response to my previous post, in which I discussed how Cecilia Tilli's "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" speaks to a cultural background.
 |
| geralt, "Woman artificial intelligence" December, 2014 via pixabay.com. CC0 Public Domain License. |
1. I do not believe that I share the specific cultural fear of artificial intelligence addressed by Tilli in her text. I do not subscribe to the idea that artificial intelligence that humans create could become like Hal from 2001: Space Odyssey, a fear Tilli specifically mentioned in her article. However, I do have a fear of what humans could potentially do with such a technology, because as Tilli stated, such a powerful technology could legitimately shift global power if not developed probably and if programmed with arbitrary values that could target a group of other people in the world. Additionally, I honestly have to say that I identify with the evaluative cultural mindset that our society has toward technology, which emphasizes the value of utility. While I might try to appreciate technologies that don't have explicit purposes yet in their development, I simply appreciate scientific progress more when I can examine it through a utilitarian lens, and because of that I think I hold the very value that Tilli appeals to in her article. I think the prevalence of this value of usefulness mostly stems from the widespread presence of technology is today's society in which nearly every person has a personal computer, or a cell phone.
2. As stated above, I do not share the specific cultural value of distrusting the technology of artificial intelligence itself. While I do not think that the technology itself can be harmful or threatening, which many of our culturally-beloved films discuss and depict, I instead have a fear of what people can do with such technology. For example, the use of the discovery of nuclear fission is not dangerous, but what it was used for was destructive and worthy of fear, even (especially) today.
3. This piece was written in our own time and culture in the United States, and I think it accurately reflects the cultural values of utilitarianism in technology, as discussed above. However, I think this text uniquely examines artificial intelligence with a grander scope in mind than most would use in today's society. The article is part of a project, "Future Tense," which seeks to assess how technological discoveries made today will affect our society decades and even centuries in the future. Thus, I think this text does not reflect the mindset of immediacy that is so prevalent today, since most people are so concerned with the "now" in our fast-paced lives in which distance is minimized through technology. Rather, this piece seems to maintain a distance in its view of the development of artificial technology that leads to a unique perspective that otherwise may not be as easy to understand in our culture today.
4. This piece was written only seven months ago, so it is still very recent and relevant. I do not think that the cultural values referenced and addressed in the piece have changed in any significant way since then, although technologies using narrow artificial intelligence have grown, as self-driving cars are becoming realized now, indicating that the topic of Tilli's article is only becoming more and more important today.
Reflection
For my reflection, I read the works of Kelly and Trey for their analyses of their own cultural assumptions. In reading what they wrote, I noticed that they had varying degrees of agreement with their chosen texts. Kelly generally seemed to agree with her piece, but had specific points that she had different opinions on, such as the real effect of ice bathing for athletes' recovery. Trey, on the other hand, seemed to agree with his piece and had little against what it had to say on government spending in the military (Department of Defense).
What I learned from reading these analyses was that it's perfectly okay to disagree with your chosen text, and although I don't think this lesson will apply to my writing, I think it is an important one. In my case, I honestly agree to an almost complete extent with what my text's author had to say. but it may be helpful in my writing to stress qualifying points that I concede in agreeing with my chosen piece.
Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting
Assessing the Cultural Setting of "Striking the Balance On Artificial Intelligence"
In this blog entry, I will analyze the cultural background behind Cecilia Tilli's article on artificial intelligence at slate.com, and assess how the background speaks to norms of today's culture.
 |
| Cryteria, "The camera eye of HAL9000, an artificial intelligence in 2001: A Space Odyssey" 1 October 2010 via wikipedia.com. Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) License. |
1. I think that the primary cultural belief that affects the writing of this article is the cultural predisposition to distrust artificial intelligence. As the author, Tilli, cites, our cultural film industry is full of movies that play upon our society's distrust of advanced, futuristic technology as seen in science fiction movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator, which the author explicitly names in her writing. This belief that artificial intelligence is dangerous is the reason why, in January, 2015, a meeting of developmental researchers of artificial intelligence met in Puerto Rico to create goals and guidelines for the development of this technology. Additionally, the cultural value of use and function, or utilitarianism, in today's society plays a large part in the text because today we all view technology in terms of its usefulness, and the author wrote to this evaluation that we perform when considering new scientific advancements.
2. The text tackles these cultural values and beliefs directly by stating their influence in the issue of artificial intelligence development. Tilli specifically cites science fiction films and how they speak to our society's fear of technology, and she uses this evidence to explain why news sources are interpreting scientists' caution in development of AI as fear. However, Tilli speaks directly to this anxiety over technology in our culture by validating it through examples in which AI could negatively impact our world, such as by automation or shifting of global power, but then providing an optimistic promise for the technology's potential. Most importantly, Tilli appeals to our cultural value of utility in scientific advancements to justify a steady, but cautious, development of artificial general intelligence.
3. The text, as stated above, targets the cultural fear of artificial intelligence but does not criticize it, but rather specifies in what ways it is valid and what ways it is not. To some degree, Tilli criticizes the fear over AI but only in the instances of uninformed, reckless interpretation of caution in developing AI technology as fear and allusion to doom. Overall, Tilli actually supports a careful approach to research of AI, but frames this support through stating the benefits in utility of having such a technology, so as to ease our cultural fears and turn them into directed caution to accompany steady progress in the realization of AI technology.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Cultural Analysis of "Striking the Balance On Artificial Intelligence"
Conducting a Cultural Analysis on a Text
For the writing of this blog post, I performed an analysis upon the cultural references used in Cecilia Tilli's article "Striking the Balance On Artificial Intelligence" and how those references inform the reader of the rhetorical situation of the piece. While some of these words were not directly used in the text, I identified the idea of utilitarianism, scientific advancement, and caution as culturally informative key words that the text speaks on. I believe Tilli speaks to utilitarianism in our culture by always reiterating that artificial intelligence should serve a purpose or function for humans, which reflects our culture's need for scientific advancements to be checked in a sense by a need for such advancements. However, Tilli's other central point in her writing that researchers should be cautious of developing such technology for any purpose, lest the worst potential of the technology become a reality. Ultimately, I think Cecilia Tilli's argument regarding these ideas is that artificial intelligence could greatly benefit humanity and change its course for the better, but we as creators must be cautious as we move closer and closer to the realization of such technology.
I believe that Tilli maintains a tight, collected argument in her article that manages to speak about the topic of caution in developmental research while basing her discussion in the recent event of an artificial intelligence research conference and in cultural history, primarily in film and modern uses of technology. I think that Tilli uses references to science fiction films, which are based on hyper-scientific advancement, to ground her discussion in easy-to-understand contexts that she contrasts with the real situation of today so that she can state her point. Her point, being displayed in an understandable light, is that artificial intelligence is still far from being realized and even further from being purposed and given a function in our utilitarian cultural approach to technology, yet despite this distance such research and development must be treated with caution, not fear.
By referencing films that have displayed out-of-control technology, Tilli effectively identifies that our culture has a predisposition to not trust artificial intelligence, yet she also references figures such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, who are regarded as some of the brightest minds in our day, to illustrate the point that this technology is being handled by the best scientists we have. Additionally, Tilli touches upon the necessity for technology to have function in our culture by referencing GPS systems, computer logic systems as seen in games, and the potential for a specialized robotic surgeon to appeal to readers' understanding and appreciation of applied technology.
However, Tilli unifies her argument by stating points of caution among these references by saying that such technology could be ethically wrong in its final state, could automate a threatening amount of jobs in our market, and could even disrupt the global state of power if not developed with caution and delicacy.
I honestly believe that Tilli conducts a strong argument that would win the support of a reader because it uses references to film culture to illustrate our culture's overly-worrisome disposition towards artificial intelligence, yet it also references our culture's history of utilitarian drive and economic hardships to convince the reader to identify with her stance of caution on developmental research of AI.
For the writing of this blog post, I performed an analysis upon the cultural references used in Cecilia Tilli's article "Striking the Balance On Artificial Intelligence" and how those references inform the reader of the rhetorical situation of the piece. While some of these words were not directly used in the text, I identified the idea of utilitarianism, scientific advancement, and caution as culturally informative key words that the text speaks on. I believe Tilli speaks to utilitarianism in our culture by always reiterating that artificial intelligence should serve a purpose or function for humans, which reflects our culture's need for scientific advancements to be checked in a sense by a need for such advancements. However, Tilli's other central point in her writing that researchers should be cautious of developing such technology for any purpose, lest the worst potential of the technology become a reality. Ultimately, I think Cecilia Tilli's argument regarding these ideas is that artificial intelligence could greatly benefit humanity and change its course for the better, but we as creators must be cautious as we move closer and closer to the realization of such technology.
 |
| agsandrew, "Soul Geometry Two 003" January 24, 2014 via deviantart.com. Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. |
I believe that Tilli maintains a tight, collected argument in her article that manages to speak about the topic of caution in developmental research while basing her discussion in the recent event of an artificial intelligence research conference and in cultural history, primarily in film and modern uses of technology. I think that Tilli uses references to science fiction films, which are based on hyper-scientific advancement, to ground her discussion in easy-to-understand contexts that she contrasts with the real situation of today so that she can state her point. Her point, being displayed in an understandable light, is that artificial intelligence is still far from being realized and even further from being purposed and given a function in our utilitarian cultural approach to technology, yet despite this distance such research and development must be treated with caution, not fear.
By referencing films that have displayed out-of-control technology, Tilli effectively identifies that our culture has a predisposition to not trust artificial intelligence, yet she also references figures such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, who are regarded as some of the brightest minds in our day, to illustrate the point that this technology is being handled by the best scientists we have. Additionally, Tilli touches upon the necessity for technology to have function in our culture by referencing GPS systems, computer logic systems as seen in games, and the potential for a specialized robotic surgeon to appeal to readers' understanding and appreciation of applied technology.
However, Tilli unifies her argument by stating points of caution among these references by saying that such technology could be ethically wrong in its final state, could automate a threatening amount of jobs in our market, and could even disrupt the global state of power if not developed with caution and delicacy.
I honestly believe that Tilli conducts a strong argument that would win the support of a reader because it uses references to film culture to illustrate our culture's overly-worrisome disposition towards artificial intelligence, yet it also references our culture's history of utilitarian drive and economic hardships to convince the reader to identify with her stance of caution on developmental research of AI.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations
An Exploration of Ongoing Public Speech Acts in Computer Science
In this post, I will analyze three different examples of authors and speakers discussing current events and matters of debate in the field of computer science. My analyses will cover each example' author or speaker, its intended audience, and its context.
 |
| Tengrrl "Digital Rhetoric" June 20, 2012 via flickr.com. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) License. |
First, I read an article about the development of artificial intelligence and how it should be handled.
The author of the article, Cecilia Tilli, wrote the article on slate.com, where her biography states that she holds a Ph.D. in both philosophy and neuroscience from Princeton University. Additionally, according to the website, she currently works at the Future of Humanity Institute and Oxford Martin School (University), which confirms her statement made in her article that she has experience leading discussions on and working with "AI safety research." Also, Tilli revealed in her article that she sent out an open letter urging care with AI research to leaders in the field, which supports the fact that Tilli is actively involved in such research and in developing safety measures as developments progress.
I believe that this article's audience is anyone who is worried about or interested in the development of artificial intelligence. I choose this broad audience because in the article, Tilli discusses how the media portray AI safety guidelines or cautions as fears and terrors, which affect the surface-level opinions of many people who may not know much on this issue but are concerned in some way. I would say that this audience is anyone who is not only concerned about AI development, but interested in its potential effects on our society and how it stands today, as Tilli explicitly tackles the issue of current AI development in her article, in addition to issue of preparedness for when artificial "general" intelligence becomes a reality.
While the article itself lacks a date, it discusses a meeting the author Cecilia Tilli had in January, presumably this year. Tilia speaks through her article on slate.com, and does so in an editorial style that fosters her sharing her opinion to a large extent, while still pulling evidence from other sources or common knowledge. The event that this article was written in response to was a meeting about AI development safety in January, and the media's portrayal of an open letter that urged caution in AI research as being more drastic than it really was. This topic mostly relates to anti-technology push-back movements in our society today, but otherwise is fairly independent in its topic. This article also heavily referred to other articles on the January meeting and following open letter that displayed the event as a confirmation of extreme fears over artificial intelligence when in reality it was just a reiteration of the necessity for caution in such research.
Second, I examined a reading from npr.org that was a blogpost on computer science education at lower education levels such as kindergarten.
The author of the article was Anya Kamenetz, who is the lead education blogger and reporter for NPR, and is also the author of several books about education in America. Additionally, she lives in New York City, where she also writes for other publications such as Fast Company Magazine. While Kamenetz does not reference herself in her blogpost, it's clear that she has large prior knowledge in the field of education as she uses education-related terms fairly frequently and often without much explanation.
The intended audience of this blogpost is likely individuals who have some basic level of knowledge regarding education and curriculum, as evidenced by the author's use of education-related terms and focus on what education academics are saying about current issues, rather than an explanation of the issues themselves. Additionally, I think the audience for this blogpost is assumed to have some preconceived opinions on computer science education, because the author speaks about what arguments are being voiced for and against it. Ultimately I believe the message of the article is mostly that the ongoing debate over early computer science education is continuing but is making progress towards providing more opportunities in programming for young children.
This blogpost was published on September 18th, 2015 and largely responded to new events in education such as New York's mayor saying that computer science was a new educational goal for all grades of schooling or the recent development of software that teaches young children basic coding. The blogpost had the conventions of traditional blog entries, where there was use of images in addition to more concise and spread-out paragraphs, in addition to sections that divided the post up into main ideas. The article seemed to mostly address current social movements that are resisting heightened levels of technology in education, or the converse, which would be social movements that are urging the integration of technology into education so that children can become more acclimated to current technology. Interestingly, I think a linguistic background that is referred to heavily in the post was coding, which the article claimed is the new literacy of the 21st century. While this article doesn't respond to a specific text, it largely speaks to what current educators or commercial education products are saying or offering to America's education of computer science.
Third, I read an opinion piece on the Huffington Post about women's participation in the field of computer science.
The author of the post, named Kira Makagon, is a UC Berkeley graduate with a degree in computer science, who has been extremely successful in her entrepreneurial endeavors by founding startup technology companies and turning them around for massive profits. She also is regarded as a role model for women in science fields, especially in computer science, which reinforces her authority in writing this specific article on women participation in the field of computer science.
I think that the intended audience of this article is anyone concerned with equal opportunity in education for all genders, specifically those interested in ensuring women are receiving quality educations and opportunities. While the post was mostly just an opinion piece, Makagon did focus on urging that women be encouraged to participate in science fields and be instructed in real world dealings in business and science. While the post may be focused on a female audience, it certainly does not exclude male readers as the article does not restrict its message to women by directly addressing them, but rather displaying an opinion on the issue today.
This article was published on October 14th, 2014 and follows a format that I would describe as an opinion piece. For the entire post, Makagon really only discussed her opinions on the current state of the computer science field in regards to its participation by women. Makagon did not cite any other events, aside from some light statistics about gender breakdown in computer science programs, and she used an informal "I" throughout the writing, which gave the post an opinion-based structure. The post was primarily replying to recent declines in women participation in the computer science field and education systems, which speaks to the current social movement to ensure women are receiving fair and useful education. The post did not reference any other writings or events, and thus was not based on much else aside from statistics and Makagon's opinions.
Reflection
After completing my rhetorical analyses, I examined those of Alyssa and Nick. Overall, I was impressed with how they were able to find sources that touched on important, controversial topics that also had interesting authors with opinions that were good for analyzing rhetorically. I thought Nick also did an especially good job analyzing background information on the authors and contexts of the articles he analyzed.
I think I did a fairly thorough analysis in my three blogposts and articles, overall. I think I had good detail and covered sufficient information in each field but perhaps should be sure to explain the consequences of certain qualities of the rhetorical situations in future analyses.
Second, I examined a reading from npr.org that was a blogpost on computer science education at lower education levels such as kindergarten.
The author of the article was Anya Kamenetz, who is the lead education blogger and reporter for NPR, and is also the author of several books about education in America. Additionally, she lives in New York City, where she also writes for other publications such as Fast Company Magazine. While Kamenetz does not reference herself in her blogpost, it's clear that she has large prior knowledge in the field of education as she uses education-related terms fairly frequently and often without much explanation.
The intended audience of this blogpost is likely individuals who have some basic level of knowledge regarding education and curriculum, as evidenced by the author's use of education-related terms and focus on what education academics are saying about current issues, rather than an explanation of the issues themselves. Additionally, I think the audience for this blogpost is assumed to have some preconceived opinions on computer science education, because the author speaks about what arguments are being voiced for and against it. Ultimately I believe the message of the article is mostly that the ongoing debate over early computer science education is continuing but is making progress towards providing more opportunities in programming for young children.
This blogpost was published on September 18th, 2015 and largely responded to new events in education such as New York's mayor saying that computer science was a new educational goal for all grades of schooling or the recent development of software that teaches young children basic coding. The blogpost had the conventions of traditional blog entries, where there was use of images in addition to more concise and spread-out paragraphs, in addition to sections that divided the post up into main ideas. The article seemed to mostly address current social movements that are resisting heightened levels of technology in education, or the converse, which would be social movements that are urging the integration of technology into education so that children can become more acclimated to current technology. Interestingly, I think a linguistic background that is referred to heavily in the post was coding, which the article claimed is the new literacy of the 21st century. While this article doesn't respond to a specific text, it largely speaks to what current educators or commercial education products are saying or offering to America's education of computer science.
Third, I read an opinion piece on the Huffington Post about women's participation in the field of computer science.
The author of the post, named Kira Makagon, is a UC Berkeley graduate with a degree in computer science, who has been extremely successful in her entrepreneurial endeavors by founding startup technology companies and turning them around for massive profits. She also is regarded as a role model for women in science fields, especially in computer science, which reinforces her authority in writing this specific article on women participation in the field of computer science.
I think that the intended audience of this article is anyone concerned with equal opportunity in education for all genders, specifically those interested in ensuring women are receiving quality educations and opportunities. While the post was mostly just an opinion piece, Makagon did focus on urging that women be encouraged to participate in science fields and be instructed in real world dealings in business and science. While the post may be focused on a female audience, it certainly does not exclude male readers as the article does not restrict its message to women by directly addressing them, but rather displaying an opinion on the issue today.
This article was published on October 14th, 2014 and follows a format that I would describe as an opinion piece. For the entire post, Makagon really only discussed her opinions on the current state of the computer science field in regards to its participation by women. Makagon did not cite any other events, aside from some light statistics about gender breakdown in computer science programs, and she used an informal "I" throughout the writing, which gave the post an opinion-based structure. The post was primarily replying to recent declines in women participation in the computer science field and education systems, which speaks to the current social movement to ensure women are receiving fair and useful education. The post did not reference any other writings or events, and thus was not based on much else aside from statistics and Makagon's opinions.
Reflection
After completing my rhetorical analyses, I examined those of Alyssa and Nick. Overall, I was impressed with how they were able to find sources that touched on important, controversial topics that also had interesting authors with opinions that were good for analyzing rhetorically. I thought Nick also did an especially good job analyzing background information on the authors and contexts of the articles he analyzed.
I think I did a fairly thorough analysis in my three blogposts and articles, overall. I think I had good detail and covered sufficient information in each field but perhaps should be sure to explain the consequences of certain qualities of the rhetorical situations in future analyses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)