Final Draft

Second Draft

First Draft

dd

First Draft Conclusion

Instructions:

1. Read the conclusion instructions here.
2. Write your conclusion and all the drafts like this example. 
3. Don’t delete the old conclusions! Keep a record of them so I and your peers can see your progress.

My Conclusion 1

It is not hard to find sources that will warn you of the coming robot apocalypse or singularity that will render humans obsolete, either in entertainment (The Matrix) or legitimate science (Ron Kurzweil). I will be the first to admit that in so many ways these fears are justified. Computers and technology are capable of terrifying acts of destruction and cold inhumanity. What is important to remember, though, is that none of these acts are possible without human provocation, and the sometimes-scary lifelessness of computers is, when put in perspective, as scary as the lifelessness of a vacuum cleaner or screw driver. In short, they’re tools. Incredibly powerful, important and relied-upon tools. If we ever limit the expansion of technology, or anything, really, based on an unfounded fear though, we are costing ourselves so much. We will cost ourselves advances in medicine, food, water and air purification, clean energy developments and crisis management solutions. Dramatic as it may sound, it is not an exaggeration to say that technological advances save lives when used responsibly. Instead of looking at the onward march of technology as a criminal or culprit in the various woes of humanity we need to consider it from the more realistic and opportunistic perspective of, “How can we use this technology? How can we develop it to better serve our needs?” Like Prometheus surely scared his friends by wielding fire, we will no doubt earn criticism and condemnation for allowing and encouraging the pursuit of new technologies, but like Prometheus, it will be easy to ignore those criticisms with a full belly. 

My Conclusion 2

It is not hard to find sources that will warn you of the coming robot apocalypse or singularity that will render humans obsolete, either in entertainment - the Matrix or Terminator series - or legitimate science - Ron Kurzweil and the whole school of futuroligists. In part, I agree; computers and technology are capable of terrifying acts of destruction and cold inhumanity. What is important to remember, though, is that none of these acts are possible without human provocation, and the sometimes-scary lifelessness of computers is really only as scary as the lifelessness of a vacuum cleaner or screw driver. In short, they’re tools: Incredibly powerful, important and relied-upon tools, but still just tools. If we ever limit the expansion of technology, we will cost ourselves advances in medicine, food, water and air purification, clean energy developments and crisis management solutions. It is not an exaggeration to say that technological advances save lives when used responsibly. Instead of looking at technology suspiciously, we need to consider it from the perspective of, “How can we use this technology? How can we develop it to better serve our needs?” Like Prometheus surely scared his friends by wielding fire, we will no doubt earn criticism and condemnation for allowing and encouraging the pursuit of new technologies. But, like Prometheus, it will be easy to ignore those criticisms with a full belly - or a robot hygienist meticulously disinfecting our whole house, as the case may be.

First Draft Refutation and Concession

Instructions:
1. Answer the following questions.
2. Write your own refutation and concession.

1. What is my thesis?
Although computers are constantly evolving, they will never be as powerful as the human brain.

2. What is the opposite position?
Eventually, computers will equal or surpass human brains.

3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) Moore's Law (Computer processors double in power every year). b) Kurzweil, Google's futurologist and singularity poster boy. c) Advances in robot technology mirroring human behavior.

4. How will I counter those arguments?

a) Not an actual law, just an observation and prediction that has so far been true. b) Kurzweil is a publicity figure and promotes the idea of a singularity as a tool of self promotion. c) Robotics and CPU power are not parallel. 

My Refutation and Concession

Obviously my opinion is not the popular one, despite being the correct one. There are plenty of people who will dispute my position with examples from Ron Kurzweil, or Moore's law, or various recent advances in robotic technology that mimics human behavior. Of course, these arguments are all shortsighted and simply incorrect. First of all, Moore's Law - the prediction that computer power will double every year created by Intel cofounder Gorden E. Moore in 1965 - is really not a law. While it has proven roughly accurate so far, there is no reason to expect that this trend will continue. It's like saying that because the wind has been blowing South for the past hour, it will continue to do the same for eternity. In fact a more recent head of Intel, Bob Colwell, predicted the end of Moore's law to come in the year 2020 due to practical limitations of the physical world. Computers will continue to get more powerful, but they will never reach the computing power necessary to compete with a human brain because of the fact that a transistor can never be created at a size smaller than 5 nanometers. Perhaps my most likely detractor would be Ron Kurzweil, the singularity fanboy that no doubt most other detractors would quickly cite if asked to defend their position. The problem is Kurzweil is little more than a science fiction author with a reputable employer (Google). The truth is that Kurzweil's articulate predictions for the expansion of technology are mere conjecture with no solutions to the barriers people like Bob Colwell anticipate. Perhaps the most obvious reason that he would never concede to the improbability of his hypothesis is that his entire professional career and reputation are staked on the hope that one day the singularity - the moment computers reach consciousness and network together then begin multiplying in numbers and power exponentially - will become a reality. Lastly, and frankly the most laughable counterargument to my position would come from the belief that the modern trend in robotics to humanize their subjects will logically extend to cpus. If we make robots that look like humans, doesn't it make sense that our computers will act like humans, too? No, it doesn't make sense. In fact, we've been copying human movement in primitive toys since 2000 BC in Egypt and self propelled windup robots since the 15th century. The pursuit to artificial intelligence is a unique field that has been a subject of sci fi until only very recently. Humans like making things that look like humans and we always will, but we will never make a computer as smart as a human. 

First Draft Confirmation

Instructions:
1. Answer the following questions.
2. Write your confirmation.
3. Start linking to your sources. 

1. What is my thesis?
Although computers are constantly evolving, they will never be as powerful as the human brain.

2. What types of source am I using to defend my thesis? 
I am using expert opinions, a famous and relevant philosophical example and a fun article.

3. Are my arguments mostly based on evidence, logic or emotion?
My arguments have no hard evidence. In fact, I think that is one of the biggest problems with my confirmation. I have good quotes from famous people, and a good example with the Chinese Room, but no statistics or studies to support my thesis. There are no emotional appeals either, but I don't think those would be useful.

My Confirmation

Perhaps one of the challenges to adequately discussing this topic is the difficulty of defining the human brain in a way that can be compared to a computer so as to compare the power of the two. Let's first look at the human brain through a terrible lens, and one that sci fi concepts seem to constantly attribute to computers: the power to destroy. Perhaps the unique human ability to war and fight at a level unique to our species (Dolphins, as predatory and scary as they may be, will never launch a mortar barrage against an enemy pod or engage in genocide.) so will robots ever reach this uniquely human metric? Computer science professor at the University of Sheffield, England Noel Sharkey says no. "They are just computer systems... the only way they can become dangerous is when used in military applications." To Sharkey, robots and artificial intelligence have the greatest growth potential in toy markets, a strong indication of the potential for nefariousness he sees in future computing technology. He goes on to point out that the largest developments in robotics come not from software, but from their hardware. Robots that can walk or navigate difficult terrain seem to be the new trend for robots mimicking human behavior.

An article from Vox.com makes an interesting case about why computers will never be able to match human intelligence:

A computer program has never grown up in a human family, fallen in love, been cold, hungry or tired, and so forth. In short, they lack a huge amount of the context that allows human beings to relate naturally to one another.

Basically, the argument is that even if a computer can match our brain's computational power (A very far off and unlikely possibility), it will never be able to pass as a human because it lacks the experiences that really create our humanity. Or, in other words, humans are so much more than our brain power - we are the products of our upbringings. Our tenacity, will, passions and dreams all come from the sum of our experiences, not how fast we think. Because of that, computers will not be able to function at a human level of creativity or character.

Actually, this supposition stems from a famous scenario from philosopher John Searle in the 1980s. He proposed that an Englishman with no knowledge of Chinese, if locked in a room with an instruction manual for reading and writing Chinese characters, could successfully interpret and respond to messages passed under the door to him from a native Chinese speaker on the outside of the room. Theoretically, given enough time, the Englishman could respond so accurately that the native Chinese speaker would be sure that she was in fact corresponding with another native Chinese speaker.  Essentially, the Englishman would have passed himself off as a Chinese person with no contextual understanding of what it means to be Chinese. The extension of the argument into artificial intelligence is that even if we create a computer that can mimic and interact with humans so convincingly that we believe we are conversing with a real human, that machine will not be human because it lacks the contextual understandings of humanity.

Whether we define the brain by what it produces (In this paper I discussed the example of war, but many other examples would suffice, art or romance, for example), or in terms of raw computational power or how the experiences that mold each molecularly similar brain into such unique masterpieces the conclusion remains the same: Any computer, no matter how powerful or well conceived, can approach a human level of thought or existence.

Fifth Researching

Source: The Main Disadvantages of Internet Learning
http://www.bgiedu.net/the-main-disadvantages-of-internet-learning.php

My Topic: Online Learning education should not be implemented to students.

What I hope to learn from this source:
I would like to find the most fatal influences when students learn through internet routinely.

Notes:
1.One of the biggest disadvantages is that the one-on-one interaction that students get in traditional classrooms cannot be found in online classrooms. Though the person can take the opportunity to communicate with their peers and teacher through email and so forth, they still miss the actually talking.

2.since the online class is more flexible as to when the person can do the homework and assignments, they may find that they develop a sense of procrastination that they did not help before.

3.Online classes can also be much harder for those that are used to traditional classrooms.

4.Many of those that attend online classes may find that they feel isolated. They may feel as if they are the only ones having problems with learning the material since there is no other students that they can talk to about the problem that they are having, like after class at many traditional classrooms.

5.There is tons of freedom for those students that take online classes, however, this freedom can be a dangerous thing if the person cannot handle it.

6.The professor will also not force the material onto the student, so it is up to the student to learn the material on their own without being pushed by the instructor. This is a huge problem for many students who are just not ready for such freedom.

Final Thoughts:
I found different kinds of informations that I couldn't think of. I think next time I need to find disadvantages for not just students but also teachers.