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.