Where should the line be drawn for advancing technology into artificial intelligence and when does it become detrimental? Growing up, I remember when apple releasing new iPods and new iPhones. I also remember when flips phones were hip and having a blackberry was high class because it allowed users to browse the web. Through out my life, I've watched society and myself become attached to the most advanced technology available. This has made me interested in the next form of technology headed our way, also known as Artificial Intelligence. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is technology that has the ability to learn, function and teach information without human permission once activated. The emergence of AI leaves me feeling uneasy because it could be beneficial or dangerous for society. The benefit of this advanced technology is tasks for humans become easier because the AI can function without being monitored. However, this exact reason could also be very bad for society because AI could become too powerful, diminishing human intelligence and authority. Moreover, society is most reliant on the highest level of technologies making it inevitable for humans to depend on AI. Where should the line be drawn in advancing technologies and the development on AI in order to allow the human race to remain the most dominant power? 

The article "Why 2015 Was a Break Through Year in Artificial Intelligence", by Jack Clark, explains the advancements and the speed of AI's progression in 2015.  Jeff Dean, a senior fellow at Google, says the pace of AI is speeding up very quickly (Clark). The graphs in the article argue that machines using AI are making fewer mistakes each year as they develop further (Clark). Other graphs claim that businesses using AI are gradually increasing each year (Clark). The use of these graphs is to convince readers that AI is becoming more prominent in businesses because AI has fewer errors throughout its development. The article closes with a quote from Dean claiming that we are in a point of evolution where animals now have eyes and these animals are computers (Clark). Closing the article with this quote grabs the attention of readers by displaying computers adapting eyes. Anything that has eyes is alive, which signals that AI is different from any other technology created; it is alive, thus can think for itself. The values at stake are computers being considered more human and intelligent. The bias exists in the article through the availability of evidence only pointing towards AI being powerful and beneficial in society. The graphs only show the positive progression of AI and not anything negative. The credibility of Clark is strong where he cites the information he speaks about. However, his credibility as a writer is not very strong because he does not have a background in studying science and technology. 

The article "AI is Transforming Google Search. The Rest of The Web is Next" by Cade Metz begins by describing the retirement of Amit Singhal, the person who over saw Google's search engine. The person who is taking over the position is John Giannandrea, the man in charge of Google's AI systems (Metz). The concern in Giannandrea taking over this position foreshadows an increase of AI that will be seen in the search engine. Giannandrea works with developing neural nets in the search engine. Neural nets are AI used on Google to learn just like the neurons of the brain to create more efficient search results (Metz). Using neural nets on the Internet can also be called deep learning (Metz). In 2015, Google launched its deep learning called RankBrain and it was majorly successful in functioning in the Google search (Metz). The success of RankBrain and Giannandrea being incontrol signifies that Google will be heavily reliant on AI in the future. The article has bias towards AI by advocating for the development and use of it. Although the article is supporting AI, Metz points out that AI can make humans lose control over technology. This helps his credibility as a writer because he admits some of the faults in AI. Furthermore, the ethos of Metz becomes stronger when he explains the scientific points in the simplest way possible. For example, he justified Rankbrain's presence on Google by relating it to the ads that appear on websites that are similar to what a user searches the most often. 

"Chip Promises Brain-like AI in Your Mobile Devices", by Jon Fingas, describes the current situation in society that they're no neural nets in mobile devices because of their small size. However, MIT developed Eyeriss, which is a chip that can bring AI to low powered devices like cellphones (Figas). The significance in this development is that AI is becoming possible to exist in the technology that people use every single day. Moreover, Eyeriss will consume 10 times less power than mobile devices today (Figas). In turn, Eyeriss becomes more likely to be placed in cellphones because society will not reject a technology that furthers battery life. MIT's trick to Eyeriss is that it uses electrical cores that have the memory to compress information when it leaves the device (Figas). This will allow devices to get information to its users without the Internet because of its ability to learn. The biased that exist in the article is strongly encouraging the emergence of AI in everyday devices like cellphones. Specifically, Figas and MIT gain supporters for AI by offering a solution that will advance the most common technology being the cellphone. Eyeriss fixes battery life shortages and offers a way for users to get information that does not use data from the Internet. 

It is obvious that AI is coming into society very quickly and more dangerously, under the radar. Every one of these articles offers advancements for technology for humans but in return, humans are giving up authoritative power. AI makes human functions less demanding because the technology works independently. Hence, AI becomes an arguable because technology supposed to make human life easier and supposed to be more accurate. Others think that AI is detrimental to humans because makes human intelligence irreverent because AI will do the work. The first article was successful in proving the factual evidence that AI is on the rise but I do not agree that we should consider computers a part of an animal like evolution. The 2nd article concerned me at the end when Giannandrea said that we don't have to write the rules for learning systems. This implies that they can write their own rules because they are so smart. Over all the articles, I can see I might have to determine a line where technology should stop advancing. Also, I need to find a compromise in AI because it already exists in society. Therefore, it would be the most realistic and beneficial if I propose a way to limit advancements in technology and its existence. 

