Introduction
The article “Robots Are Already Killing People” was written by Bruce Schneier and Davi Ottonheimer in 2023 and published in The Atlantic. The text is written for a general audience, as the source suggests, and anyone seeking an opposing argument as to why Robots and AI should have higher safety concerns and regulations.
It is essential to note that the authors’ credentials qualify them as specialists in the topic. For instance, Schneier is a security technologist and author of books, articles, essays, and academic papers (Schneier, Ottonheimer 1). Ottonheimer is a strategist and author who focuses on various topics (Schneier, Ottonheimer 1). It allows the authors to state that they have sufficient knowledge on the subject to support their claims.
Although specific political issues are mentioned in the text, it is primarily an argumentative piece. This article’s central message is that humanity should strive for safer and more comprehensive regulations regarding AI and robots. The potential for robots to harm people has only grown as artificial intelligence has become more sophisticated.
The roads of the United States already have self-driving vehicles, and the police use mechanical dogs. The ability to employ tools is being added to computerized structures, enabling them to immediately impact the environment as a whole (Schneier, Ottonheimer 1). In that sense, robots and technology continue to take lives, and it is not normal, which is why all this technology should have political regulation. The choice of rhetorical strategies, including logos, pathos, and ethos, determines the form of the content articulation in the discussed article. Even though the argumentation lacks hard evidence, the authors focus on the logical flow, emphasizing the authoritative opinions on the issue and appealing to the readers’ emotions, which makes the article persuasive.
Logos
The argument’s strengths are prevalent in the text, making it persuasive for its readers. The first critical aspect is the appropriate use of logos, which is evident in the logical flow of the argument. For example, the writers included examples of other cases where safety regulations were not taken seriously and the outcomes they had.
Schneier and Ottonheimer establish common ground by providing background information on the need for safety regulation, including actual life events that have occurred. The article utilizes statistical data, providing hard evidence and emphasizing the importance of the argument. The authors utilize information from the Air Commerce Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and data provided by the Association for Advancing Automation to demonstrate to readers the need to protect humanity from the risks associated with robotics (Schneier, Ottonheimer 5). Appealing to facts shows that people typically disregard safety standards because they lack objective knowledge of the harmful consequences of robotics use.
Logos and Ethos
Another vital detail is the appeal to a counterargument or an opposing view on what robotic companies are saying and their opinions on these regulations. This point can be regarded as a combination of logos and ethos, making it more effective. The excerpt from the first paragraph of the article illustrates this mix.
The authors appeal to history, noting that Henry Ford initiated the beginning of the robot revolution in vehicle production (Schneier, Ottonheimer 3). The incident is described in the following words: “The one-ton robot continued to work silently, smashing into Williams’s head and instantly killing him” (Schneier, Ottonheimer 3). This point clearly references the factual background or the part of logos. The element that belongs to ethos in this passage is the story of the young employee at Ford who died as a result of the robotization of the production process (Schneier, Ottonheimer 3). This combination works effectively from a rhetorical perspective due to the contrast between the objective yet positive fact and the striking human tragedy associated with the subject.
Pathos
Schneier and Ottonheimer emphasize the importance of authoritative opinions on the issue to foreground their claims, which makes their text justified from the perspective of pathos. For example, the writers included a contrast to the argument on how large corporations are skeptical of specific claims they put out. The authors reflect on historical events connected with robotics and the lack of control over this technology.
They cite the examples of the Grover Shoe Factory Disaster, which occurred in 1905, and the opinion of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to support their position (Schneier, Ottonheimer 4). The authors write about “the preventable 1912 sinking of the Titanic resulted in new regulations on lifeboats, safety audits, and on-ship radios” (Schneier, Ottonheimer 3). In this case, discussing the combination of pathos and logos is possible because historical data support the professional view.
Ethos
Appealing to the reader’s emotions is an example of the successful use of ethos to make the writing persuasive. In particular, the writers used vivid descriptions when discussing the death cases in the article. Additionally, there are examples of using emotional language to evoke a particular response from the audience regarding a future with robots and advanced AI. For instance, the descriptions of how law enforcement officials work with “robotic dogs” are rather detailed and vivid (Schneier, Ottonheimer 4). It helps readers envision how robotics and artificial intelligence are applied in contemporary life, as not everyone considers this topic a priority.
Limitations
Although the article has many positive aspects, it also has some weak points in its rhetorical structure. Among them is that the writers could have included more hard evidence and other cases of death resulting from it. In addition, the authors overlooked possible solutions or things that can be done to help achieve these safer regulations. The descriptions regarding how robotics and artificial intelligence would affect the world might enhance the text’s emotional and logical persuasiveness. In all cases, the number of solid points in the argumentation is higher than the weak sides, which makes the article by Schneier and Ottonheimer effective from a rhetorical point of view.
Conclusion
The article by Bruce Schneier and Davi Ottonheimer employs rhetorical strategies, including logos, pathos, and ethos, to persuade its audience in support of the argument. Although the authors’ stance on robots and artificial intelligence is evident throughout the text, both supporters and opponents of this view can find something valuable in the argumentation. For instance, the writers clearly state that regulating the development and use of robotics is critical because these technologies already pose a significant harm to humanity.
The proponents of this perspective recognize both the factual and emotional reasons behind these claims, and their position becomes more justified. The opponents of this view, in turn, might gain insight into the perspective of the other side in the dispute and recognize the existing problems with robotics. This piece confirms my experience because seeing how people use robotics like drones to kill others at a long distance makes me shudder in terror. The mere existence of these technologies poses a threat to human safety because it is impossible to control them fully.
Works Cited
Schneier, Bruce, and Ottenheimer, Davi. “Robots are Already Killing People.” The Atlantic, 2023.