Ashley Mitchell WRT 205 Unit 2: Source Analysis 3/9/12

Source Analysis

In A.I Gone Awry: The Quest for Artificial Intelligence, writer and computer scientist Peter Kassan seeks to completely demolish any thought that artificial intelligence is a probable next in the future of artificial intelligence. This article was written in the year 2005 in response to then monumental announcement that a company had been founded to apply neuroscience research to achieve human-level artificial intelligence (Kassan, 1). Using that announcement as the basis for his argument, Kassan goes on to quell the excitement and fear of these claims by negating the probability of such success ever occurring. This particular article was written in the magazine The Skeptic, which is part of a larger umbrella organization called the Skeptic Society. The purpose of both the quarterly magazines and the non for profit organization is to question and analyze a wide variety of social, scientific, and pseudoscientific controversies (Skeptic.com). All those who write in the skeptic are considered experts in their field, creating a great back drop for intellectually sound debates. Though those who write these are experts in their fields, their writing is not necessarily to others who are also experts, but to the general public as well, though those with higher education seem to be specifically targeted.

Ashley Mitchell WRT 205 Unit 2: Source Analysis 3/9/12 Kassan starts off with mention of the 2005 breakthrough, and then goes on to give a brief history of A.I., bringing the reader up to date on its inception, any breakthroughs or claims, as well as the state of A.I research today. He then goes to create his argument by analyzing each specific branch of A.I, Connectionism, Computationalism, and Robotics, which are all splintered off from each other and run independently of the others. Connectionism is the philosophical viewpoint of A.I., which seek to achieve human level intelligence by modeling the human brain. Computationalism seeks to achieve A.I without having to recreate the brain, instead using the brain as symbol, not a necessary mechanism. Finally, robotics is the area of A.I that simply plans to achieve A.I by achieving autonomous human behavior. Kassan speaks of their history, and then proceeds to refute all basis of their work, based on his own personal expertise in the field as well as a number of other credible sources that he takes from. Kassan makes a credible argument with the use of rhetorical appeals and rhetorical elements. He uses elements like persona, diction, and structure to create a pathos appeal, and persona, examples, and structure to create a logos appeal. Kassans use of pathos is different from any use of it that I have encountered previously. He does not seek to make you feel sad, or angry, or disgusted, which are usually the ones most often used and easiest to identify. Kassan instead seeks to make you feel, for lack of a better term, stupid. He wants the reader to feel as if their thoughts, hopes and fears of A.I are completely misplaced and unwarranted, and that we should have known better. He also wants to make you look at those who are seriously pursuing this task of A.I just as nonsensical as you were for originally believing such things were feasible. For this task, Kassan dons the voice of the pompous sarcastic teacher, someone who is almost exasperated at the fact that he much

Ashley Mitchell WRT 205 Unit 2: Source Analysis 3/9/12 explains to us what we the reader should have already figured out. His word choice and use of structure also contributes to this persona, and our feelings of stupidity are magnified with the use of the three elements. While speaking of Computationalism, also called G.O.F.A.I (good old fashioned artificial intelligence), he speaks specifically about the magnanimous claims of success that the head of this branch has been spewing since its inception in the late 80s. Predictions for 1994, 2004, and 2015 had been made, but when looking for progress on their website, the only thing shown is the same quote from about predicted future achievements from Lenat, who is considered the father of computationalism. He also mentions the departure of Lenats coworker, R.V. Guha, from the project in the late 90s. In response to this, Kasson says, Its no wonder that G.O.F.A.I has been declared brain-dead. (Kassan 7). Use of the word brain dead is intended to make us feel as well that this area of A.I is one that is useless, and that in turn, we are not so smart ourselves if we thought for some reason that this would work. Putting this at the end of the section about computationalism seems as if this is Kassans final thought on the matter, and that nothing else need be said. While speaking on computerized robots, Kassan structures his sentences into bullet points, using them to literally jab at the reader the absurdity of robotics and paralleling it to the absurdity of A.I as a whole. Phrases like grand theoretical visions , a half century of stagnation and disappointment, and unrepentant grand promises for the future are used to make us scoff at the likes at robotics, and in turn, scoff at ourselves for believing in it in the first place (Kassan 7). Kassan also uses structure, examples and persona to bring forth the logos appeal. It would seem only right that he would want to appeal to our logic when speaking about something

Ashley Mitchell WRT 205 Unit 2: Source Analysis 3/9/12 as fantastical as A.I. Artificial intelligence is both something the general public is excited about and afraid of, which when mixed together can be recipe for over stimulated imaginations. His structure of the entire paper gives the reader the impression that Kassans thoughts will be clear and concise, as his breakdown of A.I into four parts (history, then each individual branch) shows a logical flow in and of itself. In regards to his persona, Kassans sarcastic tone is used to make the reader laugh, scoff, and in the same token, say duh at the sense that he makes in relation to the non-sense he wants A.I to seem like. Kassan negates roboticists enthusiasm of their craft, in which they often imply that in the present, what is holding us back from true A.I. is only lack of computing power, rather than anything to do with necessary data and programming. Using their own examples against them, Kassan states, After all, as soon as computers got powerful enough, they were able to beat the worlds best human chess player, werent they? (Well no--- a great deal of additional programming and chess knowledge was also needed.) (Kassan, 8). I laughed out loud at the implied duh of this statement. He structures the scene beautifully, seemingly agreeing with one of A.I.s common examples of success and then turning it around on them with his afterthoughts. Kassan concludes his article by comparing the plight of those involved in A.I with the Wright brothers, who were similarly scoffed at for their belief that heavier- than- air flight would one day come into fruition (Kassan 9). Once again, Kassan uses structure to set up what seems to be a compliment of those who believe in A.I and then brings the back down to reality. Kassan states 50yrs after the Wright brothers succeeded [in 1903], aircraft has been used decisively in two world wars; the helicopter has been invented; several commercial airlines were routinely flying passengers all over the world; the speed of sound has been broken (Kassan 10).

Ashley Mitchell WRT 205 Unit 2: Source Analysis 3/9/12 He then goes on to speak of the accomplishments A.I has achieved in its 50yrs since its birth. we have nothing but promises and failures. The quest has become a degenerating research program, pursuing an ever increasing number of irrelevant activities as the original goal receded ever further into the futurelike the mirage it is (Kassan 9-10). His use of both wording and structure allow the final note in his article leave a lasting impression on his readers; one that states, Hey, dont spend your life worrying about impossibilities, it only makes you as stupid as the rest. Though not as prominent as the other two, I do want to make note that Ethos also plays a role in Kassans article. He makes no note himself of his expertise in the adjacent field to the one he is speaking of, but Skeptic magazine heads off his article by letting the audience know that Kassan is in fact a computer scientist. His jargon throughout the article is also indicative of his profession, and he seems well versed in the world of computers and its offspring. These things are what allow us as the audience to further believe that what he says as a writer and credible source. It helps a lot that if you actually take the time out to Google Kassan, you can see that he has decades worth of experience in the field of computer engineering. Another thing that adds to Kassans ethos appeal is his use of sources. Kassan has quite a few credible sources, ranging from the speculative to the cold hard facts, once again appeasing the reader in his credibility to refute something that has been the subject of research for over 50yrs. This appeal lends its hand to the other two. Because of his credibility, we as a reader allow Kassan to make us feel stupid and gullible, allow a Kassans sarcasm to placate our fears, allow him to pompously poke fun of the life work of other psychologists, scientists, engineers, and philosophers. Without our believing whole heartedly in his ethos, both the pathos and logos appeals would fall on deaf ears.

Ashley Mitchell WRT 205 Unit 2: Source Analysis 3/9/12 This article is of critical importance to the world of A.I, as it is one of the lone voices intellectually against it. It fights soundly in a sea of it is possibles and Kassan uses his years of experience to find the flaws in A.I as becoming anything more than the stuff of fiction, and the shell of human thought, reason, and intellectual ability. I believe Kassans use of the pathos and logos appeals, which are supported by persona, tone, structure, diction, and examples, were amazingly effective at proving his point. He needed to be pompous, and sarcastic, and a little arrogant. How else would Kassan have made the reader feel as if their beliefs were flimsy and not well researched? How else would his logic seem perfectly sound if he not used examples of the nonsensical ideas rooted in A.I.? This article is of importance to my own personal views as it provides an alternate point of view. My paper will focus on the implications A.I has on the healthcare industry, and so to provide a sound paper, an alternate opinion like Kassans was a necessary source to analyze. By learning and understanding rebuttals to my own argument, I can come up with a more sound analysis of other sources, as well as the direction of my argument and hypotheses. Kassans argument has forced me to think about a more realistic future of A.I, rather than the more fantastical one I was leaning towards prior to. By allowing my paper to become more grounded, I am in turn allowing my readers to take my claims seriously, rather than as something to read and then discard. However, I wont completely rule out that A.I can be accomplished, Kassans claims cannot completely do that, but it has shaped my own personal claims for my paper into a much more focused one.

Ashley Mitchell WRT 205 Unit 2: Source Analysis 3/9/12 Work Cited Kassan, Peter. A.I. Gone Awry: The Quest for Artificial Intelligence. The Skeptic.com. Volume 12.2. Web. March 7, 2011.