Introduction
Ted Lieu, a United States Representative for California’s 36th Congressional District, expresses concern about the unchecked progress of A.I. in an opinion piece titled “I’m a Congressman Who Codes. A.I. Freaks Me Out,” published in The New York Times on January 23, 2023. Lieu discusses the dangers of A.I. and the need for stringent rules to govern its use responsibly. This essay will evaluate Lieu’s argument by critiquing the persuasiveness of his language, the validity of his evidence, and the soundness of his thinking.
Effective Use of Persuasive Rhetoric
At the outset of his op-ed, Ted Lieu employs a striking rhetorical tactic, painting a vivid picture of a dystopian future to arouse the reader’s emotions and stress the importance of his argument. Readers’ anxieties and worries about the unfettered growth of A.I. technology are addressed by Lieu’s vivid depiction of a dystopian future rife with autonomous weaponry, biassed A.I. systems making life-altering judgments, and widespread cyberattacks (Krishan, 2023). With this method, Lieu can hook the reader immediately, making them care about the topics he will discuss.
Lieu also makes effective use of the contrast between the potential advantages and disadvantages of A.I., a common rhetorical strategy. He achieves this feeling of balance by pointing out that A.I. improves many facets of our lives while simultaneously offering substantial concerns (Krishan, 2023). Because of the excellent potential of A.I. and the significance of minimizing its hazards, this equilibrium helps to emphasize the need for regulation. As a whole, Lieu’s use of rhetorical strategy to make a case for regulating A.I. is well-reasoned and persuasive.
Use of Evidence to Support Claims
Using examples from the real world to illustrate the risks of unchecked A.I. technology, Ted Lieu successfully bolsters his point. He strengthens his case by providing tangible examples to back up his arguments. First, Lieu describes an accident and injuries when Tesla’s “full self-driving” capability failed in a tunnel. This case study demonstrates the dangers of using A.I. in essential applications, such as autonomous driving (Kang & Satariano, 2023). Lieu uses this instance to show how A.I. may have immediate, real-world effects on people’s lives and safety.
Lieu also discusses the impact of social media sites’ A.I. algorithms on users’ radicalization processes. This case study illustrates the dangers of unchecked A.I. by demonstrating how it may be used to amplify and propagate destructive ideas and information. Facial recognition technologies’ potential for discrimination, especially against people of color, is an essential point that Lieu makes. He shows how unchecked A.I. might violate civil rights and aggravate prejudice and discrimination by citing examples of commercial groups employing the technology for monitoring and control (Kang & Satariano, 2023). Using these examples from the real world, Lieu can make a stronger case for the need for A.I. legislation to reduce these hazards since his argument is more tangible and understandable.
III. Logical Reasoning and Proposal for Regulation
Lieu uses rational argumentation to push for a specialized organization to oversee A.I. regulation. To illustrate the need for regulating authorities in the face of complicated and possibly hazardous technology, he draws parallels between the development of A.I. and the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pharmaceutical medications (Ho et al., 2020). The lawmaker understand that Congress cannot pass separate laws for each use of A.I. Instead, he suggests establishing a bipartisan A.I. Commission to advise Congress on how to regulate artificial intelligence best. This method is a practical and gradual response to the difficulties brought on by A.I.
Addressing Potential Counterarguments
Although Lieu’s case is compelling, it is essential to consider any rebuttals. Some would say that too much oversight will kill creativity and prevent helpful A.I. from getting to market. Lieu, though, foresees this worry and draws a line between regulating commonplace A.I. products like intelligent toasters and more consequential A.I. systems like driverless autos (Ho et al., 2020). His deep knowledge of the subject is on full display in his emphasis on the need for legislation specific to the dangers and implications posed by A.I. applications.
Lieu also recognizes the complexities and ever-changing nature of A.I. He understands the need for a flexible regulatory framework to keep up with the ever-changing field of artificial intelligence. His proposal of an apolitical A.I. Commission is a modifiable strategy that may develop with the technology.
Conclusion
Ted Lieu’s op-ed eloquently communicates concerns about the unchecked development and use of A.I. technology. Lieu presents a strong argument for the importance of thorough A.I. legislation with eloquent speech, evidence-based examples, logical reasoning, and a well-stated plan for regulation. Lieu’s solution to this critical topic, which distinguishes between A.I. uses and establishes an A.I. Commission, shows deliberation and balance even though some may argue against excessive regulation. Lieu’s proposal for proactive regulation is a relevant and compelling case for protecting society from the potential downsides of unchecked A.I. progress in a period of fast technical growth.
References
Ho, D., Sharkey, C., & Cuéllar, M.-F. (2020). M D CCC X X X V Government by Algorithm: Artificial Intelligence in Federal Administrative Agencies REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ACUS-AI-Report.pdf
Kang, C., & Satariano, A. (2023, March 3). As A.I. Booms, Lawmakers Struggle to Understand the Technology. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/03/technology/artificial-intelligence-regulation-congress.html
Krishan, N. (2023, July 5). Reps. Buck and Lieu: A.I. regulation must reduce risk without sacrificing innovation. FedScoop. https://fedscoop.com/reps-buck-and-lieu-ai-regulation-must-reduce-risk-without-sacrificing-innovation/
write