Analyzing Purpose

Determining the Purpose of My Public Argument

In this blog entry, I will respond to the questions on purpose as posed in Writing Public Lives in order to gain a better understanding of how I want to construct my public debate and what message I want it to drive. In doing so, I will clearly see what I want to accomplish with my argument.

godserv, "Got Purpose? - Sermon Title" 13 April 2010 via flickr.com.
Attribution Noncommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) License.

1. I think that my public argument will focus on the artistic potential of artificial intelligence as a future technology. By this I mean that I want to discuss not the practical applications of AI to fields like medicine or the auto industry, but the potential for AI to become a new medium for artists. I will likely how to frame my article in current evidence of art embracing new media such as video games and robotics (they exist!), and extrapolate my argument from there to include AI as another medium that artists will get to use and create with in the future. What I want my audience to feel, then, is an excitement; I want my readers to experience a unique and new perspective on the controversy, while also having their imaginations engaged by the potential artworks that lie ahead of us with AI technology (I may really need to appeal to visuals and hypothetical experiences, like an AI personality museum!).

2.
Plausible Actions/Reactions to Reading My Argument: Readers may feel/act/react...

• Excited for AI technology
• A change in their apprehension over AI research and development to anticipation
• Adopt my perspective and consider new technologies for both scientific and artistic value
• Spread my thoughts to others
• Appreciate other pro-AI arguments more, with this perspective supporting them somewhat
• ALTERNATIVELY, readers may reject my views if they don't think artistic value matches or compares at all to other applications of AI such as to the world economy (job automation, for example) that they are concerned about

Not Plausible Reactions to Reading My Argument: Readers will not likely feel/act/react...

• Depressed over the technology - my argument will either excite or anger, I feel
• Reconsider guideline strictness over AI research and development, as my argument will be more focused on how people will use the technology and not how it will be developed

3. Results from plausible effects (in order)...

• Readers excited for AI technology will likely become advocates for its development and may even argue for it publicly
• Eased fears in readers will allow them to appreciate the positive potential of the technology
• Readers who now consider technologies for scientific and artistic value may have a totally new outlook both on new and existing technologies
• Readers that spread my thoughts/argument to others will propagate more plausible reactions
• Readers that identify more with pro-AI arguments may become more accepting of non-artistically oriented arguments as they will have "entered" the pro-AI viewpoint through my argument, but may encounter and embrace other arguments advocating for the technology
• Readers who reject my argument may use it as ammunition to claim that excitement over AI technology is misguided and not focused on the topics that they care about

4. People who are most likely to adopt my viewpoint as described in my public argument will be people who can appreciate a fuller perspective of technological impacts on society, and artists. I imagine that people who may be frustrated with the approaches current pro-AI arguments are taking might identify with my argument because it is so different and (humbly) unique, and thus they might resonate well with it given that other methods of arguing have not reached them. Additionally, artists who might be apprehensive about science and technology may not appreciate the larger picture of AI's impact as it could become a new artistic medium, and thus those people might become AI advocates themselves as they could identify with my argument specifically, which lies among the various pro-AI arguments out there.

Analyzing Context

Assessing the Context of My Public Debate

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

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.

Audience and Genre

Defining The Audience and Genre for My Public Argument

In this post, I will try to define for myself what people will be interested in hearing about my research questions in the controversy of artificial intelligence, why they will be interested, and where they will go to find my public argument in addition to what they'll do with my argument.

Mika Lorenzen "Screenshot of Sculpting Plasma as Seen on Leonardo.info" 2 November 2015 via leonardo.info.
Creator Usage of Screenshot, taken of the free sample article "Sculpting Ionized Plasma" by Jean-Louis Lhermitte.

One group who I believe will be the audience for my public debate is skeptics of artificial intelligence. I believe people who are skeptical over AI's place in our society's future due to their fears over the technology will be interested in my public argument because I will be trying to pose a new outlook on AI that will ultimately be in an attempt to convince them that the advancement and development of AI tech is progress that we should be excited for.

• I think that wired.com will be a place I could publish my argument. To publish on wired.com, I would have to create an article with limited visual elements that mostly speaks about how AI will affect our society, as wired.com is an online magazine that discusses how new technologies will influence cultures, politics, and economies.
• Here is an example of a wired.com article called "Connecting the Poor Is the Best Hope for Ending Poverty."
• Here is another example of an article from wired.com called "The Upside of Artificial Intelligence Development."

• I think that slate.com will be a potential location to publish my public argument on. While slate.com publishes short, argumentative articles across a variety of topics such as economics, politics, and even opinion articles, a new project with Slate, New America, and Arizona State University and called Future Tense: The Citizen's Guide to the Future is a subsidiary online news source from slate.com that discusses how current technologies will impact our society and our lives in the future. 
• This article on AI, "Striking the Balance on Artificial Intelligence," is from Future Tense.
• This article about the future use of Mars' recently-discovered water called "If There Is Water on Mars, Who Gets to Use It?" is also from the Future Tense project.

The other group who I think will be an audience to my public debate is artists. Specifically, I think artists who are either excited and searching for new media to work in or who are skeptical that AI could be a legitimate artistic medium will both be the audiences of my argument because I will be founding my public argument on art and how it will apply to AI to create new artistic potential. I will need to keep in mind that not all artists may agree or disagree with me, so I will have to present my argument with a sense of open-minded excitement and confidence.

• I think that Discover magazine, specifically the online magazine, will be a place I could publish my argument on artificial intelligence with respect to art. Discover is a general science magazine, but does have specific tags for "art and technology" that display how technology can be used for art. These articles are very image-heavy, and have less text and are in a slideshow-like presentation on the webpage.
• Here is an example of an article that shows images of underwater sculptures acting as coral reefs in Mexico, with text accompanying each picture, explaining the events.
• Additionally, here is an article that shows how various technologies and natural organisms are influencing art today.

• Potentially, I could publish my public argument at the Leonardo Journal, which is associated with the MIT Press. While this genre would be much more formal, as I'm unsure if it has opinion pieces, the types of articles seen on Leonardo directly discuss how new technologies can lead to unique and even unorthodox art forms, which would fit my topic of AI as an artistic medium.
• Here is a sample article from the Leonardo Journal about a historical overview of electrical manipulation of human bodies in performance art.
• And here is another sample article about making sculptures out of plasma, as it appeared in the Leonardo Journal.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

Searching For Answers: My Hunt for Sources on the AI Controversy

In this blog entry, I will include a link to a google document that has my extended annotated bibliography that includes sources that helped me find answers to my questions which I posed in the previous blog post.

Mika Lorenzen, "Screenshot of Annotated Bibliography" 2 November 2015 via google drive.
Creator usage.

Here is the link to my work!

Narrowing My Focus

Specifying The Need-To-Knows

In this blog entry, I will identify what questions of the list I generated in my previous post will be most useful to me as I develop my argument for this project.

ClkerFreeVectorImages "Narrows-Warnings-Roadsigns-Signs" 2012 via pixabay.com.
Public Domain CC0 License.

I selected the following three questions to focus on as I develop my argument:


Who are the specific people/groups speaking out against artificial intelligence research?

I think that I should try to ask this question initially, because from what I know on the controversy, there are famous researchers in favor of developing AI, but I am not aware of what groups are opposing that development and research. From what I've heard on the issue, there are people who are fearful of and are opposing AI advancements, but I simply do not know who they are. Hopefully, in finding out what specific people are against AI in this controversy, I can discover what their fears and reasoning are so that I may better address, or at least reference them, to show that I understand the controversy and can construct my argument around that knowledge.

Are the people involved in this public argument over artificial intelligence considering the artistic potential of the technology?


The primary focus of my public argument will be about art factoring into the discussion and debate over artificial intelligence, so I think it will be vital to find out if this topic has been discussed elsewhere or if it's a fairly unknown/ignored viewpoint on the controversy. If I find that this idea has been discussed, that will largely influence how I design my argument, because I will likely do best by referencing and replying to those discussions. However, if I find my topic hasn't been covered in this debate, I will have to frame it as though it is a profound and completely new way of looking at and analyzing the controversy over AI and the public's feelings towards the technology.

When do researchers and developers believe AI technology will be "ready," or in other words, in a form that fits our currently imagined standards for the technology?

I think that, although this question could be answered with a simple time frame, it will serve to make me aware of how near in the future AI will be realized, and knowing that, I can construct my argument with that timeline in mind (I plan to discuss both first production and everyday prevalence). I may encounter conflicting estimates and definitions of "ready" as I research however, and have to consider these differences as I seek an answer to this question.

Questions About Controversy

Thinking Critically About Artificial Intelligence Controversy

In this blog post, I will pose critical questions about my controversy to help understand what areas of the debate over artificial intelligence its development (my Project 2 controversy) I will need to learn more about and investigate.

Cade Martin, Dawn Arlotta, USCDCP "African American man was one of a number of attendees to a town hall meeting public domain image" February 2015 via public-domain-image.com.
Public Domain CC0 License.

Below are my posed questions about public debate on artificial intelligence that will help me clarify what I may need to know before making my own argument:

• Identifying things I need to learn about WHO is involved in the controversy:
• What are the stances of recognized, leading scientific thinkers such as Stephen Hawking or Elon Musk on the issue?
• Who are the people/persons that are specifically speaking out against AI?
• Are there any groups who are actively speaking against AI development, or not?

• Identifying things I need to learn about WHAT is up for debate in this controversy.
• Do people involved in this debate fear the technology itself or the people who will use it?
• Are people in this public argument considering the domestic potential of this technology (ex. everyday uses, common presence)?
• Are people in this public argument considering the artistic potential of this technology?

• Identifying things I need to learn about WHEN this controversy has unfolded (and the larger contextual details of that time period that may be relevant).
• When was the first mention of artificial intelligence in various media?
• When was the first official development of AI technology started?
• When do researchers believe AI technology will be "ready," or in other words, in a form that fits the standards imagined in our current day?

• Identifying things I need to learn about WHERE this controversy has unfolded - and I mean both physical spaces and cultural spaces.
• What countries or places in the world is AI technology development taking place?
• Is the debate over AI development primarily American? Is it taking place elsewhere?
• Where have AI advancements already been made?

• Identifying things I need to learn about HOW this controversy has unfolded in the media (including general popular media, scholarly media and social media).
• How did the first problems with AI technology arise (with what medium, what was it in response to)?
• How has anti-AI development sentiment grown recently, if it has?
• How has AI development advanced recently and how has the media reacted?

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!

Lorenzen, Mika "Screenshot of RA Essay" 25 October 2015 via Google Drive.
Creator usage.