Zoie Bonilla

English Comp.
Unit 2 Debate Analysis Annotated Bibliography

Okorafor, Nnedi. "Robots Are Making Roads Safer and Less Congested in Africa." Room for
Debate. The New York Times, 5 Dec. 2016,
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/05/is-artificial-intelligence-taking-over-our-lives
/robots-are-making-roads-safer-and-less-congested-in-africa.
In a debate piece titled "Robotics Are Making Roads Safer and Less Congested in
Africa," Nnedi Okorafor argues that robots and artificial intelligence will significantly contribute to
global road safety. Okorafor outlines the design of these robots and how they will improve
congested intersections by keeping humans safe. She relates to readers in big cities or other
regions with poor road infrastructure by using rhetorical purposes. Her paper is aimed at
readers interested in transportation systems but unaware of the advantages that robots and
artificial intelligence (A.I.) could offer.
Nnedi Okorafor uses conjecture, definition, and quality interchangeably throughout her
argument. She uses conjecture to discuss how robot police are already in use and impacting
society and how they can be improved in the future. Okorafor also explains to us the functions
and technological advantages of these robot traffic officers. This proof is accurate by definition
since it reveals the robots' precise actions. Last but not least, she demonstrates the quality of
her paper by discussing how employing artificial intelligence (A.I.) enhances crossings that may
otherwise be neglected and dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. She does not reference
policy in her justification. Her claim that robots reduce traffic and make roads safer is in line with
other claims that artificial intelligence is improving society.
Bennett, Susan. "If A.I. Replaces Humans, Will Siri Lead Us Into the Sea?" Room for Debate.
The New York Times, 5. Dec. 2016,
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/05/is-artificial-intelligence-taking-over-our-lives
/if-ai-replaces-humans-will-siri-lead-us-into-the-sea.
"If A.I Replaces Humans, Will Siri Lead Us Into the Sea?" is the title of a Susan Bennett
opinion piece. This piece emphasizes that while computers are growing more intelligent,
humans may be losing their cognitive abilities due to having access to so much information at
our fingertips. Bennett notes that robots lack emotion, which allows them to cooperate
successfully without harboring animosity against others. However, she questions the
significance of this lack of emotion by speculating that without passion for inspiring artistic
innovation, we may not even be able to live as a society. She argues that while artificial
intelligence (A.I.) has some potential benefits, it will negatively affect people. Bennett's target
audience is a middle-aged generation that is aware of technology but has not thought about
how it can be destructive.
Susan Bennett bases her case mainly on the stasis quality level. Bennett's claim that
artificial intelligence is terrible is refuted when she says that computers harm us by becoming
overly intelligent and possibly displacing people. She also argues that without human emotion,
the advancement of culture in our society, including that of art, music, and literature, is in
jeopardy. She mainly focuses on quality but also makes a case using the first and second stasis
levels. We do not use our brains as much as we used to, she says right off the bat. This relates
to the level of conjecture since it defines the issue and identifies the need for action. When she
inquires about the relationship between natural muscle loss and atrophy of the inactive brain
and its relationship to, she also briefly employs a definition. There is no connection between this
article and the level of policy. In terms of quality, Susan Bennett disagrees with the other
debaters.
Popcorn, Faith. "Artificial Intelligence May Usher in a New Golden Age." Room for Debate. The
New York Times, 5 Dec. 2016,
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/05/is-artificial-intelligence-taking-over-our-lives
/artificial-intelligence-may-usher-in-a-new-golden-age.
In her newspaper op-ed, "Artificial Intelligence May Usher in a New Golden Age," Faith
argues that robots and computer software will free humans from labor and simplify life. She
claims that although robots will replace many jobs, the usage of computer programs and
translator apps may make our life easier. Her rhetorical goal is to persuade the public that
artificial intelligence will lead to a more prosperous and peaceful society despite the loss of jobs.
A middle-aged generation that dislikes robots is the intended audience for Popcorn.
The majority of Popcorn's argument is around conjecture and quality issues. At the
beginning of her piece, she mentions many things already in use, such as robots taking over
desk occupations and services that improve society. This demonstration refers to the conjecture
that shows how robots are already in use. She briefly mentions definition when she says that
A.I. is capable of producing financial news and music. When explaining how A.I. is used in
translator apps to facilitate worldwide communication and computers are utilized to detect rare
diseases, Popcorn also uses quality issues. In her article, she does not mention policy. She
makes the same case as Okorafor and Kasparov, namely that artificial intelligence has more
positive effects than negative ones.
Kasparov, Garry. "As Robots Replace Old Jobs, New Jobs Should Be Invented." Room for
Debate. The New York Times, 5 Dec. 2016,
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/05/is-artificial-intelligence-taking-over-our-lives
/as-robots-replace-old-jobs-new-jobs-should-be-invented
In his newspaper discussion titled "As Robots Replace Old Jobs, New Jobs Should Be
Invented," Garry Kasparov argues that because of how swiftly we are developing new
technologies, humans can regulate how robots are utilized without posing severe risks or
seizing power. He demonstrates this by giving examples of how A.I. only results in temporary
job losses while freeing people from physical labor to create more jobs. Kasparov argues that
we should educate computers on how to perform our old jobs while creating new positions for
us to fill. His target audience is most likely the working class, concerned about losing their jobs
to new computers and robots.
In his argument, Kasparov primarily focuses on quality and policy levels. The positive
news that machines free us from tedious work and enable us to be more creative is delivered to
us by Kasparov. He also claims that we can create new things and solve problems attributable
to machines. Here, the strength of his case is demonstrated, and he addresses any potential
objections by explaining why robots are a good thing. Kasparov utilizes policy to convince us
that we must maintain creating new employment to remain ahead of technology. At the
conclusion of his article, he explains that humans can teach robots to do just about everything.
In his use definition, he also makes the point that humans must maintain machines. His
viewpoint supports the other debating participants' claims that robots improve society and will
provide more jobs in the future.
Conclusion
On the speculation and definition levels of stasis, all four authors are generally in
agreement. All authors provide detailed descriptions that outline the various uses of computers
and machines and explain how A.I. or robotics function nowadays. For instance, all authors
concur that robots and computer software are already a part of our culture. They also agree that
nowadays, robots are carrying out jobs that were previously only done by humans. The
argument's central question—whether artificial intelligence is beneficial or detrimental for
society—is what level of quality is at play in the authors' debate. This happens when Susan
Bennett claims that because computers are providing us with the knowledge that we previously
would have had to research on our own, humans are becoming more ignorant as a result of
their increasing intelligence. The other authors dispute her claim and believe that artificial
intelligence is beneficial and does not endanger society. The only author who presents a
policy-level argument is Kasparov. He advises us not to squander our time and to be proactive
in our attempts to create new jobs.
Garry Kasparov makes the case that creating new jobs is what we should be doing to
keep up with the number of occupations being replaced by A.I., while the other authors do not
include a policy in their arguments. As a result, the argument stops at this level of quality. This
occurs because they disagree on whether artificial intelligence benefits or damages society. If
someone were to engage in the discussion at this stage, they would need to be aware of how
the other authors perceive A.I. in terms of conjecture, definition, and quality. Then, a rhetor may
contribute to the discussion by giving each author further evidence on the level of conjecture
and definition before attempting to influence Susan Bennett's viewpoint with the guidance of the
quality factor so that they can all reach an agreement. This would give the argument a
necessary conclusion.