Considering Types

In this post I will be using Writing Public Lives to determine what type of argument would be best for my genre and topic.

Arroyo, Adam. "Arguing Penguins" 07/08/2006 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

I feel that for my argument, I feel that the Position Argument style or the Evaluative Argument style would be best.

For the Position style, I have already thought about my own opinions on the subject and have realized that it is in that "gray area" that I have discussed in my last posts. Therefore, I wouldn't be "repeating what one side" said, but instead would showcase both sides of this argument to come to one conclusion.

As for the Evaluative Argument style, which I am leaning towards, it would work because I want to show the effectiveness of the policies surrounding AI development. I could include many aspects of AI, including in the medical and entertainment fields, to evaluate how AI would improve the world instead of harming it. 

As for what won't work, I feel that the Causal Argument and the Proposal Argument is not the best fit for my project. With this topic, there isn't much that someone of the general public can do to support the development of AI except talking about it and spreading the word. For the Causal Argument, I can' t think of enough causes of AI development that would convince my audience enough to make a difference.

Reflection:
I read through Rose and Jenny's posts. I think the main thing that I learned was that there is no reason not to include elements from all of the arguments into one, it is just about how you use them that defines the type of argument you are using for your purpose. For example, Rose wants to use the proposal argument but will include refutation and evaluative properties to help her convince her audience of her argument.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

For this post I will be developing my rhetorical action plan for my public argument. This will include my thoughts on my audience, genre and responses/actions of my article.

Indiawaterportal.org. "structure of action plan" 01/07/13 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Audience:

• Knowledge: My audience will not know the specifics of AI technology, but will instead only know what they have experienced themselves. Luckily, most people these days have a smartphone, and maybe even a smart TV (or any other "smart" technology). Therefore, they will know how it has improved their own lives. However, there is a wide belief that if AI were to get any more intelligent that it would invade an individual's privacy, which is something that I need to address.
• Values: Opposing my argument, I know that most people value their privacy and would like businesses to stay out of their personal lives. In support of my argument, many people enjoy convenience in many aspects of their lives, and now with the introduction of new technologies, there are many things that can make many things easier to do. Some people simply value the idea of technology and would support almost anything new that appears in the market. 
• Standards of Argument: I think that research that my audience can relate to their real-life experience would be best. For example, talking about some new technologies in development may get my audience more excited about the future, which is one purpose of my essay. I may have to translate some terminology but overall I feel that this will be easy to understand. 
• Visual Elements: I feel that including videos or photos of new AI technology being used in the lab, or even of new technology that is out in the market, would be best to include. This is because I can invoke an emotional response of from the new technologies that my audience will be able to use in the future and showcasing people whose lives have been improved from technology (most likely in regards to medicine).
• Purpose: I think my purpose is to mainly to expand my audience's knowledge on the concept of AI. If there is some legislation about AI in the future, then maybe this article will help to convince them that they should vote in favor of AI. However, until then, I would like my audience to not fear this future.

Genre:

1. Listicle

• Example 1, Example 2
• Function: This genre allows a lot of information to be showcased in a short amount of space, all while being pleasing to the eye. Also, because it is easy to read, a short article like this will be able to keep the reader's attention for longer and in turn, they will be able to remember the information that my article shared.
• Setting: This article is found online on quite a few websites. I could see it on a big website such as Buzzfeed.
• Rhetorical Appeals: I feel that all of the rhetorical strategies could be used for this topic. However, I feel that with this genre an emotional appeal would be best because the author must get the audience's attention in a short amount of time. Looking through statistics exclusively may not be as pleasing to read as stories.
• Visual Elements: For this genre there are many visual elements used. I will most likely use ebedded videos and pictures that pertain to this topic.
• Style: This genre is typically more informal. Therefore, I will attempt to create a more personal and informal tone, but not too informal as to harm my credibility. 

2. Editorial

• Example 1, Example 2
• Function: This genre is used to showcase the author's opinion in a short amount of time, but has the ability to be more in depth and scholarly.
• Setting: This genre is found online, in newspapers and in scholarly journals. I could see an editorial such as this in the New York Times, whether it be in their physical newspaper or on their website.
• Rhetorical Appeals: With this genre I think that taking the more logical route would be better for the audience. In my audience, the older half will be reading editorials and therefore, they will want to know the logic and research behind AI. This is not to say that I will not try to include an emotional appeal, thought. 
• Visual Elements: Usually, editorials don't include very many pictures, so possibly one or two pictures or even a video would suffice for this genre.
• Style: I feel that editorials are more on the formal side. Therefore, I will stay true to the genre and keep a formal tone, which will also help with the appeal of my credibility. 

Responses/Actions:

• Positive Reactions:
• People become excited about what's in store for the future of technology
• People become less afraid of AI taking over society
• Younger audiences think about their career with AI, or science in general, in mind
• Negative Rebuttals:
• People still don't agree with my argument/don't trust my credibility
• I could include more reading on this subject in my article. Maybe if they don't trust my word, the audience would trust someone else's on the subject.
• Audience allows AI to completely control their life
• I should mention the fact that there are still risks, and that we still have the ability ,as humans, to do things for ourselves. We shouldn't become lazy because of AI.
• People are still afraid of the risks of AI
• I will mention in my article that there should be precautions taken before AI gets too intelligence and that scientists wouldn't be so blind as to create a dangerous technology and mass produce it.

Reflection:

I read through Rachel and Jenny's posts to reflect. I have learned that there are a variety of genres to write in, some that I didn't even know about! Both seemed to understand the purpose of this project very well and know how to write on their topic. I also learned that all of the appeals can be used in any topic, but what matters is the emphasis you place on one or two depending on the genre and topic.

Analyzing Purpose

In this post I will brainstorm about what the purpose of my essay is and what I want to personally add to the public debate about AI. I will present both answered questions from Writing Public Lives and a mindmap of the thought process behind my purpose.

Mangold, Andy. "Brainstorm" 03/23/2010 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

What is the goal of your argument? What do you want your audience to think, feel, do, believe after reading it?

• The goal of my argument is to convince my audience to be optimistic about the future of AI technology. However, I also want to include the idea that we should be cautious as we proceed with this technology and don't rush to make technology as fast as possible, as when it finally does become a reality without the possibility of overtaking the human race, it will be a huge asset to society. I want my audience to feel proud that they are living in the modern age and look forward to the future of technology. If there are any younger readers in my audience ,I would like them to think about their career and consider if they are interested in a job in AI development. 

Plausible actions/reactions: 

• Audience agrees with this perspective
• Audience does not agree with this perspective
• Audience will use my post as a stepping stone to other arguments on this issue 
• They will think about how they can help AI development either within their career or in general
• They will further analyze their own AI technology (smartphones, TVs) right now

Not plausible:

• Audience agrees with everything that I mention 
• Audience develops their own AI based on my article
• Audience goes to those who don't support AI and try to convince them 

Consequences:

• Audience uses this post as a stepping stone to their own research 
• They look at more articles on the issue 
• They share the articles
• Spread awareness about the issue
• Younger readers think about their career 
• Possibly go into STEM major
• Help the cause of AI development directly 
• Readers of all ages think about their own devices
• Look into AI development
• Give ideas to companies
• More ideas for AI technology 

Possible Audience: 

• I would like my audience to mostly be people that are young to in their early 30s. This is due to the fact these are the people who will be around long enough to see some of the true AI technology go into effect. These are also the people who have the ability to change their careers (or begin their careers) into something that deals with AI development, so long as they are passionate enough about the subject.  While my article most likely won't be the main things that convinces them, I will assume that it will be one of the small things that had somewhat of an impact on their decisions.

Analyzing Context

In this post I will be looking at the "big picture" of my controversy. I will be doing this by answering questions about the context surrounding the debate.

Petit, Todd. "Magnifying Glass" 07/16/2006 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

What are the key perspectives or schools of thought?

• The main perspectives of this arguments are that: (one) this fear of AI is ridiculous because we have the ability to control it, as we have plenty of time before any sort of intelligent technology is formed. (Two) AI shouldn't be feared because it never may become a reality like we see in the movies, and (three) we should stop the development of AI as we are going about it now because we don't have the ability to properly contain it. 

What are the major points of contention or major disagreements?

• Some say that AI is too difficult to control no matter what precautions we take. Once intelligent enough, those who believe this also believe that the AI we created will have bad intentions and  will want to control us when given the chance. On the other hand, some people say that these things are very unlikely because the AI of the future will not be like how we assume it to be-or that the AI in the movies never going to become a reality. 

What are the possible points of agreement, or common ground?

• Overall, most agree that AI programming was a good idea at first with good intentions as it could really help humans to improve. Also, both sides, whether they agree with AI or not, tend to note that AI is very complex and may be difficult to control. However, with this second point some think it is impossible to control and others think that with a lot of work we can control AI.

What are the ideological differences?

• For those that oppose AI, they don't want to take the risk of having rouge intelligent technology that has the potential to end society, even though it may turn out with a good outcome. For those that support the continuation of the development of AI, they are willing to take risks because it is worth trying to help those currently rather than thinking about the future. 

What specific actions do their perspectives ask their audience to take?

• For the most part, each side simply asks their audience to either remember the risks but keep supporting AI or they ask that they take the risks seriously and ask that the audience either not support AI or that some of the profit made from AI technology should be put into funding for AI ethics.

What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments? Why did you choose these?

• I am choosing to support the AI industry for this project, or more specifically, a hybrid of the perspectives, but still in favor of AI. I feel that using the perspectives that understand the risks of intelligent robotics but are still willing to go ahead and try their best to control AI would be the best for my project. Luckily, most speakers that approve of AI are also aligned with this perspective. 

What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why?

• I think the greatest threat for my argument will be the specific one from Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates. They are both in the top of their field and most audiences would agree with them simply because they assume that the experts know what they are talking about. Also, they already have some established supporters, so that might be difficult to work with as well.

Reflection: 
To reflect, I read through Annelise and Lauren's posts on this topic. I have learned that in every controversy, the perspectives aren't black and white. Even though there are radical speakers on each side, there are those who are in a gray area and tend to agree with bits and pieces of each opinion, in turn forming their own unique belief. I still feel that my controversy is a good one to take part in as long as I recognize the gray area, which I guess I will be arguing on behalf of, and understand the context surrounding that as well.

Audience and Genre

For this post I will be identifying the audience for my project. I will also provide locations of where I might post this project for my specific audience.

Sayer, Brett. "Audience" 04/16/2014 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic 

1.) STEM students

• This audience would be interested because I am going to be discussing a big possibility of what will come within the next few decades, or the time that they will be going into their careers. Also, since they are STEM students, they are most likely going to be interested in most topics in science and can appreciate the thoughts behind every side of the controversy. 
• They might look for this article in...
• A Scholarly Article/Journal
• Example 1
• Example 2
• A Podcast
• Example 1
• Example 2

2.) General public interested/afraid of the future of technology 

• This audience would be interested because I will be discussing the future of technology and describing what good and possibly what bad can come from AI. Therefore, they can use my article to either change or confirm their interest/fear. Since they are in the general public, most of the time they don't get the information that students at a college or scientists in the field get, so they can use this article to get that information that they need. 
• They might look for this article in...
• A News Source
• Example 1
• Example 2
• A Magazine/Web Magazine
• Example 1
• Example 2

Extended Annotated Bibliography

In this post I will provide a link to my Annotated Bibliography for Project 3.

photosteve101. "Isolated Pencil on quad-ruled paper / cross section paper" 02/05/11 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic

You can find my Annotated Bibliography in APA style here.

Narrowing My Focus

I will be presenting the three main questions that I have about the Artificial Intelligence controversy in this post. These questions are revised from my last post.

Hunter, Mark. "Focus" 04/22/10 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

• Are there types of AI that are trying to be stopped or is it all types of AI?

• I feel like this is a very important question to ask. In order to truly narrow my focus, I need to know whether or not it is the whole of AI being fought against. This is because if I were to write an argumentative piece about defending all of AI and it turns out that it was only AI on smartphones, my argument would be very weak and unneeded. Also, I need to know what types of AI to do more research on. 

• What types of cultures/people don't agree with where AI is headed?

• I need to know this so that I can view the counterargument. Understanding the counterargument is essential in keeping a balanced text that does not come off as too radical. Also, this somewhat related to my last question because when I research who does not like AI, it will most likely mention what they don't like about it. 

• Who are the main groups/individuals in this controversy?

• I have a feeling that it will be more companies and groups in this controversy rather than single people. However, I would like to know who they are so that I can further analyze both sides and the context around each argument. Also, knowing this will tell me what steps have been taken on both sides to be sure that their argument is heard or even enacted .

Questions About Controversy

For this post I will be presenting questions that I have about the context surrounding a controversy and discussions about it. I have decided that I will write about the Artificial Intelligence controversy for this project .

Drachmann, Alexander Henning. "Question mark in Esbjerg" 04/13/06 via Flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic 

WHO is involved in the controversy:

• Who first drafted AI technology?
• What are the big names in AI?
• Who are the main groups trying to stop AI from becoming a problem?

WHAT is up for debate in this controversy:

• Are there specific things about AI that some people don't like or is it AI overall?
• Are there types of AI that are trying to be stopped or is it all AI?
• How far does science plan to go with AI technology?

WHEN this controversy has unfolded (and the larger contextual details of that time period that may be relevant):

• When did this controversy start?
• When was AI first produced publicly?
• What type of AI made people angry enough to start a controversy?

WHERE this controversy has unfolded:

• What types of cultures don't like AI?
• What types of cultures do like AI?
• In what forms of media are people voicing their opinions?

HOW this controversy has unfolded in the media (including general popular media, scholarly media and social media):

• Have there been any substantial arguments in the media?
• Is the news covering this controversy?
• Are these arguments typically done in academic pieces or are they in social media too? 

Reflection on Project 2

I will be reflecting on what I have done, including my writing process and my thoughts, and what I have learned from project 2 within this post. To do this, I will be answering questions from Writing Public Lives.

AsiiMDesGraphiC. "Mirror Ball Reflection" 06/22/11 via DeviantArt.
 Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

• For me, what I wanted to revise most was the amount and depth of the analysis of each rhetorical analysis. Also, after reading some peer reviews on my draft, I decided that the conclusion would be something to revise as well.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

• I never really considered my thesis more than once. However, I did want to change the wording and specifics of my thesis within my introduction. For the final draft, I wanted to make sure that what I was discussing would be stated very clearly. As for organization, I assumed that introducing the context behind the author (and why would should consider context in the first place) should be first over anything else. Next, either one of my strategies would have worked for the second paragraph, but I decided that it would make the most sense to have statistics and then how the author presents those statistics in the next paragraph. 

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

• A consideration of the conventions of this type of essay led me to change my organization. However, when I realized what audience I was truly writing to, I wanted to make my thesis very clear for them.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

• To be honest, I don't think these changes would affect my credibility at all. If anything, I wanted to assist my audience in understanding my paper so that they could analyze it for themselves. 

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

• For one, my audience will now understand what the paper is truly about instead of having to assume what points I was trying to make based on what was said.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

•  After reading through the punctuation readings, I really reconsidered how I was writing. I typically write in the same style, which can get monotonous after a while. So I decided that I would change a few sentences around and overall change my style .

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

• I feel that since my essay is more interesting to read, it will keep my audience's attention and will also allow them to remember more. Also, I changed a few sentences so that they would be more clear.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

• Yes! I had to realize that this type of analysis is a little different than both literary analysis and a QRG. It was easy to realize that it is not like a QRG, but I continued to look at my article from a literary analysis background and couldn't quite get out of that style. However, after reconsidering the conventions, I understood better what I had to write.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

• I think that taking the time to reflect on my writing helps me to understand what I should try to do better next time. Through my reflection, I will be able to see what I was wrong in doing and what I was right in doing, and then base my next assignment off of what worked. 

Reflection:

I read through both Annelise and Katherine's  reflections on their respective projects. Annelise and I found this genre somewhat difficult to write in due to the fact that we can actually use personal pronouns! We also both use these reflections to think about what we can do better for our next project. With Katherine's reflection, I agreed that the purpose and audience for this project took some getting used to writing in. Usually, my audience is simply the teacher or my peers. However, I feel that writing for this audience will actually be useful for my future academic writings. 

Project 2 Final

Hunter, Kelly. "32/365- Sparkly Part Hats" 08/25/11 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Finally! In this blog post is the link to the final version of my rhetorical analysis for project 2.

You can find my final draft here.

Punctuation, Part 2

For this post I will be describing three new types of punctuation that I have read about in Rules for Writers. I will also be discussing what I found new or surprising, along with what I learned by revising my draft based on these three points.

Diesel, Chank. "Playdough Typeface - Punctuation question mark" 09/20/12 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

The Semicolon:

• I usually mix up the uses of the colon and semicolon due to the fact that they are somewhat similar. But, in there respective areas, they can be very effective in creating a good paper. I would say that this whole section was new to me! A semicolon can be used in place of a comma when it joins closely related independent clauses.  Also, because this is something that I use often, I learned that a semicolon is used before a transitional expression, such as "for example".
• A revised example sentence from my draft:
•  "In turn, he is showing what good he has done for the world through his technology, making him seem more credible; and overall, more trustworthy."

The Apostrophe: 

• Although I feel that I know how to use the apostrophe pretty well, I often see errors in my peers' writing. So, I felt that I should look over the rules to make sure that I was not making any mistakes without knowing. I learned that an apostrophe should be used to show possession of an indefinite pronoun, such as "someone". I also learned that the plurals of letters or abbreviations should not have an apostrophe, which I have always found confusing.
• An example sentence from my draft:
• " Also, the audience would be more likely to trust someone’s opinion on AI who was first-hand experience with it rather than someone who has never worked with AI and is simply going off of their own thoughts."

Parentheses: 

• Iv'e always found the use of parenthesis as a cool addition to an author's writing, but, I have never known how to use them properly myself. I learned that parentheses are typically used to enclose supplemental material, minor digressions and afterthoughts. However, I also learned that it should be used to enclose labels to a list, such as numbers and letters. This could be useful because the topics that I will be writing on may require some lists. 

Paragraph Analysis 2

For this post, I will be analyzing one of my paragraphs that can be found within my draft for project 2. Similar to like we did for project 1, I will be breaking down the many components of a paragraph and deciding if what can be found within my own paragraph is effective or not.

 mathec. "Magnifying Glass" 11/20/12 via Public Domain Files. Public Domain Mark 1.0

You can find the copy of my paragraph, along with my comments on it, here.

During my analysis, I learned that there is much more development needed within my paragraphs, which is a key component for this kind of writing. I could also focus more in keeping my main ideas clear instead of being so vague. However, I feel that I effectively organized my paragraphs and included clear, smooth transitions. The linking of ideas was good at some points and worse in others, but I feel that once I add more to each paragraph, I will be able to link them well.

Revised Conclusion

In this post, like the previous one, I will be revising another one of the components of my paper. However this time, it will be the conclusion that will be presented.

H.L.I.T. "Discard pile" 05/24/09 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic 

Old Conclusion:
Overall, Medlock effectively uses these rhetorical strategies because he presents himself as a credible source, both from his tone and his actual experience in the field, and he presents relevant statistics. After reading this article, the next time AI or robotics are mentioned, the good things that SwiftKey has done will be brought to mind. Not only this, but the hopefulness within Medlock’s voice will make the audience associate AI technology with innovation and life improvement. Whether this was done for a world benefit or simply the benefit of his company, one thing is clear. The way that an author presents his or herself has a huge impact on the effectiveness of their argument. 

New Conclusion:
Medlock definitely makes it difficult for a reader not to trust his word. By presenting himself and his statistics in a professional tone, the reader is inclined to believe what he says simply because of his experience in the field. The rhetoric found within his article can help us to think about other articles that are done by big names in society. Typically, they have enough of a reputation that only at the mentioning of their name is enough to convince some readers, which is why Medlock's article was so effective. In the future, these texts that are written by such a famous source should not be looked at superficially, but we should truly analyze what they are saying to be sure if they can truly be believed or not.

I feel that my new conclusion is better because it makes more sense with the thesis of my paper as a whole. Also, I feel that it has a final point that leaves the readers with something to think about. Also, after reading the assigned tips and strategies box in Student's Guide, I decided to follow the "Answer the 'So What?'" approach as the audience needs to understand why rhetorical analysis is important.

Revised Introduction

For this post I will share my new and improved introduction along with my old introduction.

Morgan, Tim. "trash" 12/19/05 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Old Introduction: 
"Today, we are in an age of technological innovation. Technology consumes our lives, whether it be through social media, television or even simply the transportation we use daily. However, what if this technology were to take over our lives in a more literal sense? This fear of losing our place as the top organism increases as science moves closer to producing a robot with human-like intelligence. Ben Medlock, however, argues that the good that can come from this “artificial intelligence” outweighs the possibilities of our fears coming true. In his article “Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence”, he uses his status as CTO and co-founder of SwiftKey, an organization that produces AI, to effectively convince his audience that AI is not to be feared, along with presenting his own statistics and keeping his professional tone consistent."

New Introduction:
"Today, we are in an age of technological innovation. Technology consumes our lives, whether it be through social media, television or even simply the transportation we use daily. However, what if this technology were to take over our lives in a more literal sense? This fear of losing our place as the top organism increases as science moves closer to producing a robot with human-like intelligence. Ben Medlock, however, argues that the good that can come from this “artificial intelligence” outweighs the possibilities of our fears coming true. This paper will explore the rhetorical strategies present in his article “Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence” so that we may learn how to better analyze other articles. In this article, Medlock uses his status as CTO and co-founder of SwiftKey to effectively convince his audience that AI is not to be feared, along with presenting his own statistics and keeping a formal tone. "

I believe that the new introduction is better because it introduces my points by explicitly forecasting them, which is better for the purpose of this essay. I also referenced the audience in my new introduction and mentioned why we are rhetorically analyzing this article (so that we may get better at rhetorically analyzing other articles in the future). I also noted that I should probably take the explanation as to what SwiftKey is because I don't want to have too much information in my introduction and that is explained later in my essay.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In this post I will reflect on my own rhetorical analysis draft. However, I will be taking into account what I have learned about my own writing by reading Clay and Mark's drafts.

Mogg, Rakel Leah. "Single White Rose and Reflection" 03/24/10 via Flickr.
 Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Thesis:

In my draft, I had an identifiable thesis and did describe what I was going to be talking about. However, it was suggested that I split my thesis into two sentences so that I could be more specific about my points.

Organization:

I feel like my organization was relatively good throughout my draft. I definitely split up my topics into specific areas and had endings to each topic that the reader could identify. My reviewer suggested that I find ways to talk about how ethos and pathos work together instead of separating them. For my draft, I decided to split each strategy that my author used into its own paragraph, including its examples and explanations.

Identifying the elements of rhetorical situation:

Honestly, I don't think that I did. I did identify the audience and date of the article ,I did not talk about why these were important and did not discuss the other three elements. As I go back to revise my paper, I will include these elements and keep in mind why they are important to rhetorical analysis. 

Rhetorical Strategies:

I did illustrate how my authors used their rhetorical strategies, but now I feel that I did not effectively explain why. I did make an attempt, but it could definitely be better.I also tried to discuss how these strategies affected the audience, but I feel like I also have a lot of revising to do. I identified how they affect the audience, but not in detail, and I should explain why.

Evidence:

I think I did a good job of including evidence in my draft. I introduced each direct quote and tried to keep the natural flow of the paragraph. Also, my peers noted that I did a good job of incorporating brackets and ellipses in each direct quote. I also think that I did explain why they are relevant to the strategies that I reference in my essay.

Conclusion:

I have always struggled with conclusions. So, I feel that I definitely tried to answer the "so what" question, but, I should go back and change it until it flows well and truly answers the question. I did introduce a bigger picture within my conclusion, so depending on the readers' interests, they could possibly want more after reading my essay. 

Punctuation, Part 1

In this post, I will be describing three topics that I read about in Rules for Writers about Punctuation. The referenced sections will be about what I believe that I can improve on within my own writing.

Varlan, Horian. "Punctuation marks made of puzzle pieces" 10/23/08 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

1. Unnecessary commas-
• After reading this section, I have realized that a comma is not just a way to include a pause in your writing. What I have noticed was that I have a tendency to use a common incorrectly in a series and I also use a common to set off a concluding adverb clause. Not only this, but I also have a habit of using commas after a coordinating conjunction. I don't know how I obtained these habits, but I can only assume that it is because I am trying to follow the natural flow of reading with pauses included. 
2. The colon-
• I have never known how to actually use a colon, so I usually just never include them. However, I now realize that it can really improve my writing, especially because of my style. I know now that a colon can be used before a list or a appositive, which I use fairly often. From now own, I will try to practice more with the colon.
3. The dash-
• I've always like the look of the dash inside of a text, but I have never known how to use it. After reading this section, I realize that it can be used to place emphasis, and to introduce things such as a list, restatement or a dramatic shift in tone. I have a habit of using a comma to set off an appositive, but now I know that instead of using a comma, a dash can be used for the same thing! 

Reflection:

I reviewed both Mark and Clay's drafts of their Rhetorical Analyses. I definitely learned a lot about punctuation while looking them over. In Mark's draft, I noticed that he too had unnecessary commas in his draft just like I did. For example:
" By intimating this nuanced outlook on the GOP’s internal politicking, Bouie helps readers begin to understand his vision for what is happening within the Republican Party, and also helps slowly build into his implications..."

I feel that taking either of the commas out would be better. 

In Clay's draft, I saw that he used the colon effectively, so this helps me by giving me a reference of how to use it in my own writing. In his article was this quote:

" What makes his use of statistics especially powerful is that he includes three different types: shocking, evidential and minor."

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

This post will present my first draft of my rhetorical analysis.

Dombrowski, Quinn. "Russian essay draft" 03/24/08 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

To my peer reviewers:

Once again, thank you for taking the time to look over my paper! As you read through this, I would like you to look at the organization of my thoughts and if there is enough analysis within my essay. For some reason, my mind was spacing on how to best present my thoughts, and if there were even enough thoughts presented. So, bear with me! I know this is will probably be hard to read right now, but I will try my best to make it better! Any feedback other than what was already mentioned would be greatly appreciated as well. 

You can find the draft of my essay here!

Practicing Paraphrasing and Summarizing

In this post, I will be doing an exercise to practice paraphrasing and summarizing long quotes. I will be referencing a quote from my chosen article for this project.

Park, Adrian. "Inkwell icon" 09/26/2013 via Wikimedia Commons. Attribution 3.0 Unported license. 

Original Source:

"While our AI approaches are showing tremendous progress, we are a long way off it attaining the general intelligence of the human brain. To give some idea of the scale of the task ahead, research suggests there are more logical switches in the adult human brain than in all the world’s computers combined. The human brain integrates data from a vast diversity of sources, and it’s also likely that we will need to figure out how to embed AI systems in the real world in meaningful ways to allow them to build realistic models that capture the complexity of nature and human interaction. At the very least I believe we are decades away from intelligence that is anywhere near humanity’s. If we take the risks seriously, that should give us plenty of time to prepare."

My Paraphrase of Original Source:

Ben Medlock presents the essence of his argument in "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence" by stating that artificial intelligence technology is years away from even being close to being considered on par with human intelligence. At its current state today, it can't compete with the human brain as it does not have the ability to gain information from the outside world, but only what it is told. Since we are so far away from having human-like computers, we will be able to adapt and create a plan for such technology as we continue to innovate and progress, and the risks won't be an issue anymore.

My Summary of the Original Source:

In "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence", Ben Medlock states that AI technology won't have human intelligence for many years and during the time it takes to innovate a human-like computer, scientists will be prepared for any risks they come across.

Project 2 Outline

This post will showcase the outline of my rhetorical analysis of my article. To start, I will show what parts of the "Sections of the Paper" reading I found most helpful and what I incorporated into my actual outline.

Regan, Caitlin. "Writing." 09/03/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

First, what I found helpful was that within the introduction section, the text mentions that this essay should be about the writing itself instead of the general ideas around it. This helps because I had assumed that we were to also shed some light on the issue itself, but now I know that emphasis should be on what the author writes in the article. Also, the fact that it states details about how the thesis should be helped me to realize the importance of having a thesis that can be supported. I also feel that the way the text explains how to develop the body paragraphs is very helpful, as it is easy to follow. Finally, the conclusion section also re-instilled the importance of leaving the audience with something to think about, not just simply restating the purpose of the essay. I chose to do this within my own text by discussing how it will continue to have an impact on those who read it, since this is such a relevant and recent topic.

Outline      

Introduction:  

• Thesis
• In the article "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence", Ben Medlock uses his status as co-founder and CTO of Swiftkey to convince his audience that artificial intelligence is not to be feared. To keep his credibility, Medlock keeps his professional tone constant and has many statistics available within his article. 
• Background info/context 
• Who Ben Medlock is
• Credentials
• What he has done
• What he is going to do in the future
• Reasons why he wrote this article     

Body paragraphs:

• Body Paragraph 1: 
• Discuss his formal tone
• Why keeping a formal tone helps one's credibility and why he uses it in this instance
• Formal tone shows audience level-headedness, even if it is very biased
• Professional usually means trustworthy 
• Wants to keep his credibility so that people will trust his opinion
• Examples:
• "AI has the power to transform people’s lives."
• "AI is all around us. Let’s make sure we get the best out of it now and in the years to come."
• "I"
• How these examples show his tone

• Body Paragraph 2: 
• Discuss his statistics and examples shown within the article
• Why he uses this strategy
• Even availability shows credibility
• Shows experience with AI
• All good statistics/examples
• Appeals to emotion and credibility
• Examples
• "This sense of optimism goes as far back as Turing, who believed we would have truly intelligent computers by the close of the 20th century."
• Stephen Hawking-Emotional 
• "SwiftKey’s AI algorithms analysed thousands of words from his writing, roughly doubling his speech rate."
• " To give some idea of the scale of the task ahead, research suggests there are more logical switches in the adult human brain than in all the world’s computers combined. "
• Body Paragraph 3:
• Discuss why he mentions his own company
• Shows good AI has done, but also what good he has done
• Shows first-hand experience with AI= credibility
• Examples
• "We integrated our technology into..."
• "At the heart of this system is a predictive artificial intelligence engine, developed by SwiftKey, the company I co-founded in the UK seven years ago."
• Body Paragraph 4:
• Does not discredit other side of this argument, in fact, he knows that AI will one day gain human-level intelligence
• Why?
• Helps not only with tone, but keeps a sense of trustworthiness 
• Examples:
• "At the very least I believe we are decades away from intelligence that is anywhere near humanity’s. If we take the risks seriously, that should give us plenty of time to prepare."
• "...we are a long way off it attaining the general intelligence of the human brain"
•  "There are debates to be had about the ultimate objectives of AI research and potential risks..."
• Conclusion: 
• Overall, he uses himself and his status has support for his argument
• Tone is very important
• We should keep this in mind as we read other articles with this same strategy. Can we honestly trust them because of their status or are they manipulating their facts? 

Reflection: 

After reading Tom and Ann Emilie's outlines, I realized that there are many different ways to analyze an article, especially since there are so many different topics to discuss. For example, in Ann Emilie's outline she focuses specifically on her author's audience, which is something I had a difficult time trying to place into my essay. I also realized that, after reading Tom's post, thinking about the smaller claims within my paragraphs may make it easier to draft afterward. 

            

Draft Thesis Statements

For this post, I will be presenting the thesis statements that I have created based on my article. I will also be explaining my reasoning behind them and if they may be difficult (or not) to truly use.

Henderson, Nathan. "Draft Icon" 03/15/13 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

In the article "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence", Ben Medlock uses his status as co-founder and CTO of Swiftkey to convince his audience that artificial intelligence is not to be feared. Since he is very active within this community, Medlock keeps his professional tone constant and has many credible statistics available within his article. 

Ben Medlock, in his article "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence", uses stories of individuals with high status in the scientific community, such as Stephen Hawking, to reveal how AI technology can improve the world. As an emotional appeal, this tactic can convince a wide range of people within his audience, even those that are not familiar with AI. 

Out of both of my thesis drafts, I feel that the first one would be easier to write on. Even though both strategies mentioned are apparent within the article, Medlock's credibility is shown throughout the whole article. The emotional appeal discussed is simply within a few paragraphs. Therefore, with more information, I could have a more well-rounded analysis.

Since these are drafts, I may find a way to include both appeals into one thesis, or I may change one all together. However, I do feel confident that I have identified the rhetorical strategies, but I need to find the best way to word how I feel they are used.


Reflection:

I read through Charles and Sam's posts, which revealed to me the many different types of appeals being used throughout these types of articles. With Sam's, my author had the same types of rhetorical strategies used within the article. It helped to see that using one's status within a community is a valid way to show credibility. With Charles', I also had a hard time trying the best way to differentiate my theses.

Analyzing My Audience

Every piece of text needs an audience. For this post, I will be describing mine based on the given Student's Guide questions below.

Cambell, Justin S. "Audience HDR" 11/24/10 via Flickr. Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Who am I writing for?

• For this project, I will be writing for incoming students that are interested in Neuroscience and Cognitive Science, or anything relating to the mind. However, my professor and my classmates will be the ones truly reading it. 

What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

• I feel that newer students that have similar interests that I do will tend to agree to Medlock's statement. With this major, most students are very excited to be introduced to new technology, even more so when it can help people. Also, since this generation is centered around technology, the risks that come with AI are somewhat forgotten about anyway because we are so optimistic about the next innovation in AI. When responding to this position, I will be sure to cater to the fact that AI technology is certainly amazing, but will also need to remind my audience of the apparent risks specifically. 

What will they want to know?

• My audience will want to know what types of AI are coming out soon, in what time frame. They will also want to know some examples of risks that AI can bring, 

How might they react to my argument?

• I feel that my audience will mostly agree with my argument and might even get excited for what is coming up in the future. However, after hearing about some of the risks of this new innovation they may be a little more wary than before to introduce AI into their own lives if they don't need it.

How am I trying to relate or connect with my audience?

• I feel that I could connect with my audience by appealing to their interests. So, by introducing examples of new AI and what it can do, I could get my audience more excited about the future and possibly help them to view the future of AI in an optimistic light instead of worrying about the possible negative consequences.

Are there any specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

• Again, showcasing new examples of AI technology and how it can help us in our everyday lives could get new students even more interested in the subject. Also, possibly describing the science, including Neuroscience, behind this technology is very interesting and could entice people to the idea of AI technology.

Reflection:

I have read through my peers' similar posts, more specifically Sam and Lauren's. After reading and replying to their posts, I have learned that we all have a good understanding of what this project is about. Both of my classmates' posts had really great thoughts and I feel that before I continue on, I should think more in-depth about the context of my topic. Also, I learned from Sam's post that since his topic is not of a heated discussion, I feel that he can talk about it more openly without the fear of offending anyone. I think that this is similar to my topic and having a free discussion (within reason, of course) could help me to have a rounded argument and truly show my audience how the author presents their argument in different ways.

Cluster of "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence"

Below, you will find a mindmap, or cluster, of my chosen article for Project 2. This was done on Coggle, and the article I will be referencing can be found here.




For this cluster, I decided that I would simply organize my past blog posts (6.3, 6.4, 6.8, 6.9) into this mindmap. So, on the left we have everything dealing with the rhetoric of my article, including the strategies and situation present within the text. On the right, the cultural values and ideology are shows. For each branch, I decided to separate them by topic and include some brief information about the topic. For example, under Rhetorical Situation, and then under Author, I named the author, Ben Medlock, and included his current job status and his credentials.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence"

In this post, I will be analyzing the rhetorical strategies, or more specifically, the ethos, pathos and logos used within my article. You can find the article I will be referencing here.

the Italian voice. "Writing my monthly articles" 03/09/08 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Appeals to Credibility or Character:

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Credibility and Character (Ethos)" on page 182 can you recognize in your text?
• In my article, I found:
• References to credible sources: 
• "Prof Hawking has claimed AI could result in the end of the human race."
• "Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, has expressed concern over the ethical grey area that AI could pose."
• Word Choice:
• "AI"
• "ethics"
• "algorithms" 
• "intelligence" 
• Tone:
• Using his diction, Medlock was able to create a very academic and persuasive tone. 
• Author's public image:
• Ben Medlock is a co-founder and CTO of SwiftKey, a type of AI. He references his own company and how it has helped many people, including Stephen Hawking. 
• "At the heart of this system is a predictive artificial intelligence engine, developed by SwiftKey, the company I co-founded in the UK seven years ago."
• Acknowledgement of counterarguments:
• "Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, has expressed concern over the ethical grey area that AI could pose."

• How and why would the author(s) use these strategies?
• The author would use these strategies because artificial intelligence is a very scholarly topic, especially when applied to real life. Therefore, he must come off as a credible source in order to even have a chance at persuading his audience. 
• How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author's/authors' credibility and character?
• These strategies would definitely improve the audience's perception because he is at the front of AI innovation as a co-founder of SwiftKey. Also, by mentioning how it has helped someone as famous as Stephen Hawking, another scholar, the audience now knows how AI can improve someone's life. 
• How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message?
• I feel that these strategies improve the effectiveness. This is due to the fact that since the author comes off as a very credible source, since he is not worried about the risks of AI, the audience shouldn't be either. 
• Does/do the author(s) seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?
• Yes. As the CTO of SwiftKey, Medlock may only want to say good things about AI as to improve sales and advertise his company well. If people were afraid of the risks of AI, his company would fail. 

Appeals to Emotion: 

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)" on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text?
• In my article, I found:
• Emotionally compelling narratives:
• "AI has the power to transform people’s lives. We integrated our technology into Prof Hawking’s software to allow him to make whole next-word predictions, rather than typing a letter at a time."
• Level of formality:
• Throughout the article, the author is very formal and does not insult anyone or even joke around about the topic.
• What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?
• Mostly, Medlock is trying to make the audience feel sad about disadvantaged people in order to incite their willingness to allow AI to improve their lives. 
• What is the actual result?
• I think that he was effective in creating this emotional response. Mentioning someone went from only typing a letter on a keyboard at a time to full words is certainly amazing and makes the reader want to see what else AI technology can accomplish.
• Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?
• These emotions are effective. Even though it is more of an educated audience, the reason why we have all of these innovations is that we want to either improve or fix something. Therefore, mentioning that AI can help people makes scholars want to help the author's cause. 
• How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author(s) or the logic of the text?
• I don't think the emotional appeals affect the credibility or logic. There is certainly logic behind wanting to help someone with a disability, and since the tone is strictly formal the credibility of Ben Medlock is not changed, maybe even improved.

Appeals to Logic:

• Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Logic or Rational Decision Making (Logos)" on page 183 can you recognize in your text?
• In my article, I found:
• Historical records
• "However, the UK has a long heritage in this area, beginning with Charles Babbage’s 1837 design for a general purpose computing machine — his 'analytical engine'. "
• Statistics
• "To give some idea of the scale of the task ahead, research suggests there are more logical switches in the adult human brain than in all the world’s computers combined."
• Effective organization of sentences, paragraphs, ideas, images etc.
• The article overall is well-written and I could not spot any errors.
• Clear transitions between sections of text 
• Medlock clearly shows when he ends an idea and begins another. 
• What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?
• He is attempting to create a well-rounded argument with support from current statistics and past records. Not only this, but an argument is mostly effective when the text is written well with no noticeable grammatical errors.
• What is the actual result?
• I believe that this resulted in what the author wished as bringing current and past sources definitely helped his argument. However, I wish that there would have been more than one example of each. 
• Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?
• Scholars typically want references to other studies so that they can do their own research. This also makes the author overall more credible because their opinion is supported by other people, more specifically, scientists. 

Reflection:

After reading through the posts by Scott and Addie, I learned that authors typically use more logos and ethos rather than pathos strategies. Maybe this is just the normal way articles are written, or maybe because they realize that pathos could affect their credibility. In both of their articles, my peers' respective authors used plenty of ethos strategies, even over logos. I think that this is due to the fact that organization and effective transitions are used in almost all articles. However, in order to make an argument effective, we need to include expert opinions and references like that. Also, I feel that like my peers, my post did pretty well at describing what strategies my author used.

Analyzing Message in "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence"

For this post I will be answering questions from Student's Guide and I will be deciding which parts of their list on what to analyze work best for my specific article.

Burrus, Tyler. "Cryptic words meander. One day you'll learn to soon discern its true meaning..."
05/31/09 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Out of all the bullet points listed, which two or three seem most relevant to the goals of your text's author? Why?

Out of all of them, I believe that expressing an idea is one of the most relevant because throughout the whole article, the author is reflecting the fact that he believes that everyone should support AI, even though there may be risks. Next, I think that the author is attempting to persuade an audience of something for the same reason. The entirety of the text is the author's attempt at changing the audience's perception of AI and its uses.

Which bullet points do NOT seem relevant to the goals of your text's author? Why not?

I think that the author was not attempting to analyze, synthesize or interpret this situation. It was simply persuasive, and he did not try to describe what the risks were or why people were afraid. While he did want to change the way the readers feel about AI, he was not necessarily advocating for change as people are already moving forward in the process of innovation for AI.

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author/speaker is trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

There could possibly be layers to the way he is trying to get people to forget about the AI risks. He may not necessarily mean to completely forget about what could go wrong with artificial intelligence but instead doesn't want those fears to interfere with the progress coming from AI. Also, within his message he mentions that AI technology could improve others' lives. I believe that underneath this message the author is trying to get the point across that we shouldn't let fears of anything, including AI, get in the way of our attempts at helping other people.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

In the following post I will be relating my article's represented beliefs and values to my own, or my own cultural assumptions.

Ostrovsky, Andrew. "Emergence of Artificial Intelligence 0007" 07/01/2013 via DeviantArt.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License

What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

I am definitely an advocate for any kind of advancement in technology. We wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today without such progress. We wouldn't have gone to the moon, we wouldn't have the modern medicine we do and we wouldn't be able to share news with the touch of a button. I also share the value that we should help anyone that is diseased or disadvantaged. As someone who has seen how technology can save someone's life, I understand the power that technology, even AI, can have over survival.

What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?

I don't share the idea that we should just ignore the risks of AI. With any decision, we must acknowledge the risks and try to find a way to work around them. Even though I share the belief that this fear shouldn't stop any progress with AI, we should still understand what the risks may be.

If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our culture?

The UK is a first-world country and an international superpower, just like the US. Therefore, we share many values about progress and technology. They are just as  advanced in the technological world as we are and seek to improve. However, their country is considered less religious than the US and therefore they may be more willing to innovate new human-like computers than people in the US, who may assume that this act is "playing God".

 If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?

This text was written very recently and therefore the beliefs and values are the same as the time that this post was written.


Reflection:

After reading Sam and Katherine's posts, I realize that every topic that is discussed can have many opinions based around it. Not every argument is black-and-white, but instead, people can perceive different values within their culture and base their own opinions around that. As authors, we need to be able to put our own opinions aside and simply analyze the text. However, we shouldn't ignore what we believe because analyzing something we disagree with may make us more critical, and therefore, pay more attention to what is being said within the text.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

In this post, I will be analyzing my chosen article  in terms of its relationship to its cultural setting.

This article was written by Ben Medlock, who is from London, and it was published on September 22nd, 2015. The article was published on the Financial Times website, which is also based out of the United Kingdom.

Sandberg,Anners. "Open mind" 4/20/09 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, or laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

I believe that the audience of this article must value and believe in progress, or at least value the change happening around them due to technology. The advances made in technology have been made so quick, and now that we are getting to intelligent computers, people need an appreciation for AI in order to understand this article. Also, the idea and norm that society needs to help the disadvantaged, in this case by a disease, is also important because the article is stating that we should forget about the risks of AI in order to fulfill this norm.

Does the text address these directly or indirectly?

This article addresses the beliefs and norms indirectly. At the beginning of the article, it is mentioned how Stephen Hawking uses AI, along with many other disabled, in order to improve their life. This is not only an emotional appeal, but would only be an emotional appeal if society were to care if the disabled were able to be helped by technology or not. Also, the author mentions how AI is now all around us and calls upon people to start accepting that fact.

What is the relationship between the text to the values, beliefs etc.? Is it critical or supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in some way?

The text is not seeking to modify any beliefs, but instead, asks its audience to begin to bring these beliefs to a new level. It is supportive of those that believe in the power of AI relative to how it can improve an individual's life. It does not criticize those who don't believe this advancement will do more good than bad, but tries to persuade them to think differently.