51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。


私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展


Concerned about how or if robots can replace humans

2020-08-10 来源: 51Due教员组 类别: Paper范文


下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文 -- Concerned about how or if robots can replace humans,文章讲述随着技术,科学和人类社会的发展,机械和机器人被大量生产,并被广泛用于人类生活的各个方面,例如生产劳动力,科学研究或日常家务劳动。随着机械的功能深入渗透到人类社会,公众中引发了一个有争议的问题,那就是机器人(一种看起来像具有高度智能的人类的机器)是否会取代工作场所或什至是人类的机器。


Concerned about how or if robots can replace humans

With the development of technology, science and human society, machinery and robots are produced massively and are more widely used in every aspect of human life, for instance production workforce, scientific research or daily housework. As the function of machinery infiltrates deeply into human society, a disputable concern is raised up within the public that is whether or not robots, a kind of machine that look like human being with highly developed intelligence, would replace human beings in working places or even in private cases and jeopardize human life and society. Public opinion varies towards this question; however, in Humanoid Robotics and My Friend Robot, two distinct streams of opinions are presented respectively. David Bruemmer states in his article Humanoid Robotics despite the fact that humanoids do bring ethical problems, humanoids are still helpful and human beings should not fear them as long as they are well-programmed. In the other article, My Friend the Robot, the author Kathleen Richardson holds a rather negative opinion that is letting robots to function emotionally, as accompanying the elderly may cause even more serious ethical trouble than aging problem presently.

In the first article talked about, Humanoid Robotics, the author David states clearly in the first paragraph that “It is important to re-emphasize that humanoids cannot and will not ever replace humans” and from here we can conclude that the author holds a pretty positive sight that human beings shall never worry about us being replaced by machinery and robots, since they are the production of human beings. What robots can do are helping human beings and relieve us from meaningless simple works. And as technologies develop quickly and freely, human beings need more help from humanoids. As the author says, “the better a technology is, the more dependent we become upon it”, as humanoid produces such huge of benefits for us, they also bring some negative effects and pose potential threat to human society. David look at the pervasive employ of humanoids with a comprehensive and objective point of view by explain both the advantages and disadvantages. At the end of this article, he comes to a final opinion that is human beings shall never be afraid of robots which we produces with our own minds and hands and will also follow human beings’ instructions.

Kathleen Richardson mainly focuses on how or whether the robots could function as alternatives to human beings regarding functioning emotionally like offering companion to the elderly.  She proposed several questions considering whether it is true that human beings could form emotional relationship with companion robots. She gives examples like the report addressed by Ada Brunstein which says that s sense of morality that kids have towards Aibo, a robotic dog, could just be out of its expensiveness and fragileness. She does admit in her article that robots indeed have many uses for the old population like Pearl and Asimo, however she points out later, using Asimo as an example, that what robots could bring to the elderly is limited and uncertain. What Asimo can do for the elderly as a therapeutic tool could never match that of human beings and it can never be equated to a man. She also indicates at the end that if researchers try to impart ethics, or in other words, emotions, in robots, the real and practical function of robots as machinery would be diminished. As for the controversial question whether or not human beings should have boundary with robots, will become more serious and provoke further problems when robots are more inclined to be used as emotional companion to human beings.

The core perceptions of the two authors are distinct from each other, as David is willing to ignore the ethical problems brought by humanoids and thinks it is necessary to erase the negative effects as long as we program them properly, however, Kathleen concerns more about the boundary problem between human beings and robots when they are functioning as emotional companions. Though, they two hold apparently different opinions with each other, the factors and elements they are considering in their articles respectively are pretty much the same. As we conclude, both David and Kathleen take the ethical problems that would be raised up by more pervasive and far-reaching function of robots, and the benefits generated in to consideration. There is this consensus of the two article that is the authors acknowledge both the good part and bad part of robots In both articles, they have analyzed both the advantages and disadvantages, for instance, David points out how important it is of robot to “free our minds for more worthy efforts”, meanwhile also states later if we “develop an emotional conception in a robot”, serious social and moral consequences could be generated. Kathleen does the same way by talking about negative effects out of positive effects.

For David’s article, Humanoid Robotics, I assume it targets at audiences who are worried at the massive and penetrating function of robots in human life and are regarding the ethical problem would outweigh the actual use of robots as workforce. At the end of his article he states like “we have designed to model and extend aspects of ourselves and, if we fear them, it is because we fear ourselves”, which I believe is used to reaffirm the benefits robots bring to us and to erase the doubt and concern existent. As for the Kathleen’s article, I arrive at this solution that the intended audiences are those who are enthusiastic and totally supportive to artificial intelligence. Similarly, evidence can be found in the last paragraph, “If researchers apply ethics to machines, then potential of the technology would be overshadowed by an uncertainty about who and what it is for”.

In the article Humanoid Robotics, David used the example of Isaac Asimov’s fiction books as a negative example to argue that it is not practical to predict the emergent effect of robots’ behaviors and it is never easy to underlie rules for robot investment. However, this Isaac Asimov example actually could just increase the fear of robots since the example proves that predicting robots’ behavior is difficult, which is not consistent with his thesis. In contrast, Kathleen employs several rhetorical questions in My Friend the Robot to promote her arguments. For instance, she throws out a question in the middle of her article first, “Could companion robots be a technological solution to the problem of elderly alienation?”, and then gives her answer in the next whole paragraph. By arguing this way, she makes her essay more compelling and persuasive.

As for the tone of the two articles, both David and Kathleen hold a very certain, eloquent and persuasive tone while presenting their opinions. David uses words like never and will frequently, for instance sentence “humanoids will never rise up and wrest control from our hands shows his resolution. Kathleen also uses expressions like “ I think” to illustrate her thoughts, for example, “ I think the following examples symbolize the inherent problem in equating robots and humans.

  We have analyzed before that the two article adopted same elements in consideration, both advantages and disadvantages are admitted in both articles. Then, how come there is such a huge difference between the conclusions of the two articles? The reason lies at the different emphases David and Kathleen hold, David focusing on the practical and traditional use of humanoids as workforce, however, Kathleen stresses on the scenario that robots function as human companion emotionally. Regarding the issue of robots application, I personally think that we would be better to take both the practical function and ethical rules in to consideration and to remember one principle, using robots to benefit the society and our life, instead of posing threat to us.




上一篇:Cultural relativism 下一篇:Based on the deontic argument