Analyzing Context

Assessing the Context of My Public Debate

In this post, I will perform a guided analysis exercise by responding directly to questions from Writing of Public Lives Chp. 12. In doing so, I will learn more about the context of my debate and thus be able to more confidently construct my public argument on artificial intelligence.

Mika Lorenzen "Screenshot of Chapter 12 from Writing Public Lives" 2 November 2015 via google drive.
Creator Usage of Screenshot, taken from provided class material of Christopher Minnix's "Audiences and Opportunities: How to Use Research and Rhetorical Analysis to Get Your Voice Heard."

1. Primarily, the two perspectives on my controversy of artificial intelligence research and development are those of fear, and those of confidence. While I may be oversimplifying the two sides, most every article or opinion I've encountered that discusses the issue is either voicing concerns and apprehensions over AI, or is trying to convince others of and declare their own faith in scientific advancement. There are some in-betweens, so to speak, as is the case with Cecillia Tilli in her article "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence" at slate.com's Future Tense: The Citizen's Guide to the Future, which states the legitimate concerns of strong AI in our society, while ultimately convincing her readers to be confident in, yet cautious of, AI as it is developed. However, I believe that most people involved in this debate are experiencing fears, excitement, or both.

2. The main point of contention between the two perspectives stated above whether or not artificial intelligence will benefit our society, and further, if humans will be able to control it responsibly. All other disagreements between the two outlooks stem from that fundamental opinion. For example, some people are fearful of AI as they will very likely automatize a large portion of jobs, thus negatively impacting the economy, while those people's counterparts might argue that this increased efficiency will do more good than harm. Similarly, those who dislike the potential AI prevalence in our future society worry that AI will supersede humans due to evolutionary differences should AI become self-controlling (Stephen Hawking), while others believe that this would be highly improbable and humans would remain in control of their technology. There are minor disagreements between the two groups involved in the debate, but those above are the majority of the main discourses the two sides argue over.

3. If the two groups were to agree on anything, it's that we as a society, both in America and across the world, still have time to dictate what pace and temperament we will assume as we march forward, potentially towards the birth of superior AI in 2045. Thus, both groups are currently arguing as now is the time to establish our method and guidelines of AI development. Additionally, both groups may agree that artificial intelligence is a leap forward in scientific creation, although they may disagree on how it may be used. In other words, both groups likely regard AI as an advancement, but disagree on how it should affect our future.

4. Ultimately, as discussed above, the ideological differences between the two perspectives are that those who disapprove or are afraid of AI believe that it will do more harm than good in our future society and may be tooled for wrong doing, while AI advocates believe the benefits and opportunities brought forth by such a technology will far outweigh any consequences that may arise from its development, and thus AI should be developed with a focus. Again, though, I'm oversimplifying - some people involved in the debate acknowledge the fears over AI while also believing in the positive potential of the technology.

5. Those who would likely identify as being against AI would likely urge caution or even resistance towards the development of AI, demanding strict guidelines for research and development of the technology or a removal of resources or scientific focus from the technology. Advocates for AI's creation would likely encourage confidence in the development of the technology, and excitement and planning for its applications to multiple fields in the future such as medicine, business, logistics, etc. Some if not most advocates for AI development may still promote caution and, of course, guidelines for the research of it, however.

6. Honestly, I will be assuming the position of pro-AI development thinker in my public argument, and thus I will try to focus on similar perspectives that promote the positive potential of AI in our future. Using these perspectives as a spring-board, I plan to take their confidence in the technology and add my own views to the debate which will also advocate for artificial intelligence being an active component in our future society. However, I will try to acknowledge, to some degree, the fears of those who might not share my views, so that I may convince them of my own more effectively by understanding their apprehensions.

7. Purely negative, anti-AI perspectives as well as industrial utilitarian- or economically-focused perspectives on AI will likely threaten my argument, as I will discuss everyday applications of AI with attention to art, which people who are concerned with industrial uses for or economic effects of artificial intelligence may not receive well.