Literary discourse on the future of AI
(Critical Essay)
"The sad thing about artificial intelligence is that it lacks artifice and therefore intelligence.” ~Jean Baudrillard
Machine learning has contributed to major technological advancements in many areas of everyday life like automated transportation or security, but it has also led to fear and anxiety from skeptics. Adapted fiction from postmodern tales to Hollywood sci-flics have long dramatized machine learning as the ‘Overcoming the monster’ story: humans are good while robots are bad. The dystopian themes of AI taking over humanity or ensuing chaos globally has provoked apprehensive audiences and cautious scholars with one question: is the consciousness of artificial intelligence possible and should it be treated as a serious concern to society? In their articles, Stuart Russell, Melanie Mitchell, and Cade Metz all take different positions on this topic utilizing various rhetorical strategies and appeals to convey their argument of whether or not AI should continue to be advanced in the future.
Ideas pen to paper
Each author uses powerful diction to compose important elements of their arguments to draw the reader’s attention to that section. Russell effectively employs this strategy in defining machines as being “intelligent to the extent that their actions can be expected to achieve their objectives” in his article, How to Stop AI before it Stops Us. By highlighting the words “intelligent” and “their,” he draws attention to the fact that these machines are not carrying out our objectives, the ones that created them, but rather their own. This emphasis is important to ensure that the reader is engaged with the author’s negative view on machine learning. In contrast, Dr. Melanie Mitchell chooses to emphasize her supportive view on machine learning by using powerful, loaded language rather than actually highlighting the words as Russell had. Mitchell describes the current AI discussion as being “plagued by flawed intuitions about the nature of intelligence” and labels part of Russell’s argument as “one example of a misaligned objective.” This use of “plagued”, “flawed”, and “misaligned” demonstrates Mitchell’s strong feelings toward the opposing argument for AI. Mitchell’s argument proves that AI authors can simply use strong diction in place of physically bolding the words as Russell had. However, both of these authors demonstrate that AI authors should use scholarly, didactic diction to create an eloquent argument that will persuade the reader.
The Debate
Comparing and contrasting the alternate sides of the AI debate is a powerful part of several author’s arguments. By describing both sides of the story, the authors are able to prove their position as the superior one. In Metz’s informative piece, he describes a super-intelligent AI system called GP3, which is able to imitate statements made by public figures based on its knowledge of words obtained from internet resources. Metz describes GP3 as “both a blessing and a curse” since GP3 learns all of its information from the internet that is clouded with bias and hateful commentary. In this statement, the author is able to describe both sides of this treacherous argument for or against AI and machine learning by weighing the pros and cons of this machinery. Melanie Mitchell also develops her argument by juxtaposing her ideas against others and by presenting evidence from both sides of the AI argument to provide a basis for her stance on this debate. This comparison strategy is employed by many AI authors and proves to be very effective in reinforcing the author’s argument.
Another powerful tool used by writers in the AI field is to provide credible sources of information in their articles to establish powerful logos. Authors will take quotes from important people and well-established research articles to give their papers more depth, which is an especially important characteristic due to the futuristic nature of AI articles. Without this factual evidence to back up their claims, authors would be left writing pure fiction, which is overall less convincing. Dr. Mitchell includes in text citations from philosophers, Op-ed writers, and a Pulitzer Prize winner to validate her argument for the acceptance of AI. For instance, before giving the reader the facts she wanted to highlight from Dr. Hofstadter, she establishes the credibility of her source by describing him as having a “Pulitzer Prize-winning book” and being a “cognitive scientist.” Providing this background information helps the reader understand the credibility of the source referenced in the article, giving her statements surrounding the subject more significance. Metz also establishes several points of credibility using vice presidents, researchers, and other professionals in the AI field. When describing AI systems, such as GPT-3, Metz references “Mr. Amodei, OpenAI’s vice president for research” who describes a need for improvement to enable a higher level of processing of data. Both Mitchell and Metz cite distinguishable authors in their articles to form a trustworthy foundation to build their arguments from. This solid foundation proves to be vital to both of these literary works. While having credible sources is a significant component of AI writings, Russell’s Op-ed proves that these authors can be convincing without the use of outside sources to support his argument. Instead he uses vague references, such as “some skeptics in the AI community,” which does not establish any credibility among this source, but he uses it to try to make his writings more persuasive. Although there are many different ways to approach writing about AI, the authors that choose to validate their arguments by providing credible outside sources have stronger, more eloquent articles that capture the reader.
The Bottom Line
Persuasive sci-fi articles about AI include powerful diction, articulate comparisons, and an establishment of credible evidence to persuade the reader of the argument. Russell, Mitchell, and Metz have varied opinions of how AI should be treated moving into the future, but they all effectively persuade the reader of their stance using some of these conventions. AI forces people to question if they are replaceable and if machines could take over. By reading
Op-Eds and informative sci-fi articles, one can determine their perception of the Artificial World. Moreover, one common theme among all three articles is the call to be informed. If humans continue neglecting to research AI and develop their stance, they will be placed at the hands of the scientists that are designing AI. Therefore, these article have called everyone to become informed about the newest AI advancements. While the future of AI is uncertain, today’s society is at the forefront of a new frontier that will forever change man’s understanding of machines.