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.
No comments:
Post a Comment