The article “A.I Is Not A-OK” is a New York Times opinion article by Maureen Dowd. It was written on 30th October 2021 and found in the URL, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/30/opinion/eric-schmidt-ai.html .
The article is a discussion of whether A.I should be a matter of concern. Dowd interviews some people on the possible dangers of artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future. The first interviewee is Eric Shmidt, a former CEO of Google who has a book on the age of artificial intelligence. He talks of A.I as being dynamic in that it can be both helpful and harmful. He also talks of the possible extent of the intelligence of the artificial intelligence, reasoning that maybe the extent of their perception ability is way past that of the humans (Dowd). His approach to putting a collar or restriction is ultimately a kill switch that could be used just in case artificial intelligence poses any harm. He insists that unleashing artificial intelligence to its full potential could lead to a robot overload. He talks of them not having to harm us physically but also mentally through the children necessarily. Jaron Lanier also shares his views on the possible implications of artificial intelligence. He talks of A.I was a fantasy. His idea on the harm caused by A.I is more based in terms of how much time we spend interacting with technology. He says that technology is already manipulating us (Dowd). The author uses key points like how all people say the metaverse is more satisfying than the real world. Maureen Dowd uses both ethos, logos, Kairos, and pathos to build and strengthen her claim throughout the article.
To begin with, Dowd uses several rhetorical concepts to bring out her main point in the article. She uses Kairos, a concept of time (Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz), to show that the gradual change in artificial intelligence should be alarming in the near future. Her article aims to show that what we think is a technological breakthrough is, with time going to be a problem. Furthermore, she completes her article by bringing the concept of time when she says, “unfortunately for us, we won’t know the answer until it is too late” (Dowd). The idea that artificial intelligence will influence our futures gives a reader a credible reason to be interested in the article’s topic of discussion. She imposes the use of ethos through her occupational background. Dowd is a political, cultural, and international affairs writer for the New York Times. She mostly writes on topics that could cause major differences in world economies and operations. She bases her opinion article on major authorities of Silicon Valley and technological field, having interviewed some of the most influential people in the technology industry like Elon Musk and Eric Schmidt. Therefore, her sources are credible, encouraging a reader to believe in the information provided.
Maureen Dowd also uses pathos to pass her point (Lunsford, and Ruszkiewicz). In a statement stated by Jaron Lanier about how A.I might get to us using our children. She draws connections with our emotional appeal. Children are a very sensitive part of society. Incorporating the children in her article appeals to the reader to gain concern, especially a parent reader. It is factual that children are more easily immersed in technology than adults. Going hand in hand with this is the use of the concept of logos (Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz). Many of Dowd’s arguments are based on common logic. Pieces of evidence can be found from previous statistical data and analysis. The current change and development in technology are indeed alarming. She uses an example of a speech by Elon Musk, who is currently leading the artificial industry, that the rate at which machines are learning is much greater than the way the human brain learns (Dowd). The truth of this statement is supported by statistical data collected during the testing of these machines. These data work at convincing the reader that the argument in this article is verifiably true.
Maureen Dowd’s use of these concepts is a great way of providing a sturdy foundation for her research and article about the danger that artificial intelligence poses. They work a great deal in convincing the reader of the credibility of the research, and the way it relates to our contemporary lives peaks our interest in the topic (Dowd). The language used clearly defines this as an evaluation essay that aims to predict the possible implications of the emerging A.I technology. Dowd’s argument lacks logical fallacies, which may undermine the credibility of her article since she only used statements straight from the technological giants of the 20th century. The basis and the history of this argument are unknown; however, recent movies and writing the topic of artificial intelligence have to crop up once in a while, and their positions in the movies or text are usually devastating. These factors may have influenced her writing. Maureen Dowd uniquely writes her article in an almost dialogical manner, increasing the reader’s interest. She, however, does not use language innovatively and attractively.
Finally, while technology genuinely poses plenty of problems even in its current state, I am not of the idea that artificial intelligence is going to be harmful. Like any code, artificial intelligence code was written by humans, and this says many things about it. The first and most important is that it can also be undone since humans make it. My view on the article is that although its basis is true, it is still just a theory. There have been no evidence or citations of A.I anomalies. However, since it is still a developing field, then the article might also be genuine.
To sum it up, Maureen Dowd has a strong claim that the dangers of A.I am real. She has backed up her statement by reviewing interviews with experts in the field of technology. However, I feel like she was more biased towards the destructive potential of artificial intelligence. While her thesis is genuine, it is also true that artificial intelligence is the next big step in this evolving world. More and more resources are focused on creating A.I systems
Work Cited
Dowd, Maureen. “Opinion | A.I. Is Not A-OK”. Nytimes.Com, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/30/opinion/eric-schmidt-ai.html.
Lunsford, Andrea A, and John J Ruszkiewicz. Everything’s An Argument. Bedford/St. Martins, 2013.
write