Humanity is Still Superior Over Artificial Intelligence

The element of advanced technology and robotics has been on the debate over the years. The basic of significant discussions have been on its influence and whether it is meant to doom humankind. In the article ‘can We Avoid a Digital Apocalypse?’ by Sam Harris, the author believes that the continued production and advancement of computers will take one-day building robotics that surpasses human intelligence. He further argues that these robots will destroy humankind, giving a relevant example with the replacement of human labor by the computerized robotics which can perform tasks more fast and accurate. On the other hand, the article, "Thinking does not imply subjugating" by Steven Pinker focuses on the human power to use reason. Steven further interrogates how the process of reasoning was achieved. He notes that the whole human nature of thinking and having some belief alone and cannot be transferred to any machines. At this point, he proves that no day a computer, however advanced it may be, will surpass human intelligence and if it may, it cannot in any way threaten human life.

I find Steven Pinker more persuasive in that; he draws a distinct line between humans and machines. Although there is a risk that computers may in one way surpass human performance, it can only work within the limited programming. He gives an example of an AL system, which does not in any way involve duplication of a human being. A machine is limited to a particular function, and although it may surpass human reasoning and capability, its features cannot extend beyond the programmed line of the task. A good example is a car driving machine which cannot attract a soul mate.

The author acknowledges risks of unemployment with the introduction of robotics. When it comes to computations and calculations, he recognizes the fact that there exist machines and technology that accurately carry out estimates. However, where on earth with the roboticists design the robots without safeguards? He gives an excellent example of the existing machines and the safeguard measures against harm on a human. Previously, the technology experts anticipated that with time the technology would outdo the humans, but apparently, none of that has happened because of the safeguard measures.

According to Steven, the robotics cannot reason. There is no risk that a robot will harm humanity because a human can cause and take action. The speculation on the possibility of an Al system outdoing the man that builds is a theoretically dreamt of but practically impossible. According to Steven, its maker could predict such a scenario early enough and curb it accordingly. He questions the ability of the robots to reason. Steven outlines how technology could never outsmart its maker without being controlled. He also brings to light the naturalistic unconscious power of man to reason. If the existing technology has not surpassed or harmed a human, why and how the advancement of such would be an as a threat to the same human who builds it!