Don T Fear Artificial Intelligence Summary

Artificial intelligence research remains a captivating topic for societies to explore. However, in no small part due to the ethical concerns the movement reaves cultivates, AI research maintains relevance to the field of computer science. Particularly, the prospect of humanity coexisting synthetic autonomous intelligences can cause people to reject AI development, as Elon Musk has. Elon denounces the movement, equating it to “summoning the demon” (McFarland, 2014). In “Don’t Fear Artificial Intelligence,” Adam Elkus attempts to counter Elon’s comments and explain the (ostensible) irrationality behind fearing AI advancement. Adam presents his position with a commanding voice and clear organization. However, his argument suffers both from an

overuse of jargon, inappropriate citations, and glaring uses of fallacious reasoning.
Initially, Adam introduces the reader to the ethical concerns surrounding the development of malevolent AI by referencing the fear surrounding evil robots in popular culture. Subsequently, the article introduces Elon Musk’s comments about AI, wherein Elon directly calls AI a threat to humanity from an existential point of view. Adam retaliates by referencing computer scientist Yann LeCun’s comments, which mention that progress on AI development remains far from the fables of popular science fiction. Furthermore, the article elaborates on how the threats of hype and negative media attention possess the ability to hinder advancement in robotics as a whole, in addition to segregating technology from the mainstream. Finally, Adam explains that concerns about human autonomy are also moot, as the incentive to continue AI development can integrate AI into human lifestyle in a fluid manner.
The article, from an organizational point of view, maintains a high degree of effectiveness throughout. Adam chooses to model the article after an essay. In other words, the article has an introduction stating the premises present within the article, an elaboration upon the premises comprising “body paragraphs,” and a conclusion restating the arguments (Polyanskyy & Lim, 2015). This deductive style of argumentation, where the [Source] argument states its conclusion within its premises, stands among the most effective forms of presenting an argument to a reader. Consequently, the reader can easily understand what the author argues from the beginning of the article, as the introduction states the argument. Subsequently, the reader can review at the evidence at hand and analyze the steps the author uses to come to the article’s conclusions. Finally, the author reminds the reader of the importance of the conclusion. Through deductive reasoning, Adam organizes his argumentation in a convincing manner, consequently making his article more convincing to read.
Aesthetically, Adam crafts his article with finesse.

Adopting a commanding tone, the article maintains appropriately direct language, providing readers with the feeling that Adam possesses a strong conviction for his beliefs. For example, the article starts by calling Elon Musk “wrong,” instead of simply providing a counterargument. Adam also ensures that, amongst the technical argumentation, there are references to popular culture to “ground” the article for readers and provide audiences with a point of reference. For example, there are several references to “Skynet” (an artificial intelligence program) from the Terminator series present throughout the article. Additionally, Adam contributes to the confident tone present within the article through numerous citations. These citations further command a sense of credibility, as the presence of such numerous references can lead readers to believe that they are reading a piece with a large scientific

backing.
However, the citations themselves reveal a set of problems with the style of writing present within the article.

The references themselves are often long and do not reveal relevant information in an appropriate amount of time. For example, when the article equates iPhones and iPads to the “’undiscovered country’” (Elkus, 2014), the relevant citation leads to the Wikipedia page for Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country. For some readers, the amount of external material necessary for a complete understanding of all of Adam’s arguments can prove too much to manage at once.
Unfortunately, the arguments present within the article are problematic as well. At no point does Adam actually elucidate on the flaws present within Elon’s argument. Instead, where Elon presents statements against the thought of sentient AI, Adam argues for the negative sociological impact of fearing AI. Elon presents AI as an “existential” [Source] threat, steeping the concern against AI as a problem of ethical philosophy. Resultantly, Adam constructs a fallacious straw man argument; by attacking a subtly different argument to what Elon states, Adam attempts to prove his

counterpoint.
An analogy may help in providing a proper understanding of how Adam misses the point of Elon’s argument. A vehicular journey always possesses a beginning and an end. AI development represents the trip in this analogy. “Passengers,” like Elon, may stress that the perils of the actual destination and call for the trip to come to a halt. A passenger like Adam retaliates by arguing that Elon’s concern hinders the quality and progress of the journey. Clearly, Adam’s argument does not hold much significance to Elon as the concern remains about the threat present after the advancement of AI development. However, Adam does attempt to provide a legitimate counterargument to Elon once, by linking to another article by Peter Singer. Detailing the faults within the specific scenario in Terminator Salvation, the article Adam references still fails to combat Elon’s actual point. Elon argues that AI presents a threat to “human autonomy” SOURCE a significantly powerful AI would understand the reason behind its creation. Comparatively, humans often gripe with nihilism, and the meaning of organic life. To the autonomous AI which Elon fears, humanity has no reason to exist.