ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS Read the article Think about what you read...

Question ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS Read the article Think about what you read… ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONSRead the articleThink about what you readDo you agree or disagree with the article? Why?Include two pieces of text evidence; properly embeddedDevelop a thoughtful and thorough response to the text One Typed PageHeaderHeading12-Point Font1″ MarginsTitleIndented ParagraphsThesis StatementThesis statement is specific and properly sets up the rest of the paper, including personal position and claimDevelopment of IdeasTwo solid examples are presented, with in-depth developmentExamples strongly supports the thesis statementWord choice effectively communicates the message with little to no confusion or vague thoughts/ideas ARTICLEFrankenstein: Giving Voice to the MonsterEssay by: Langdon WinnerPublished: July 7, 2017 | Category: Technology, Arts The possibility that artificial creatures, products of human hands, might achieve sentience and take on an active role in society is an age-old conception in world cultures, the subject of myths, stories, moral fables, and philosophical speculation. In Greek mythology one finds the tale of Pygmalion who carves a statue named Galatea with whom he falls in love and who eventually comes to life. In Jewish folklore there are stories of the Golem, an artificial creature animated with surprising results. Norse legends include reports of clay giants able to move on their own accord. An ancient Chinese text describes the work of Yan Shi who in the 10th century B.C. crafted a humanoid figure with lifelike qualities. Both Plato and Aristotle draw upon the myth of the statues of Daedalus, mythical creations that could move, perform certain kinds of work and would wander off on their own unless tied down by a rope. In the Politics Aristotle uses the metaphor in his defense of slavery: “. . . if every tool could perform its own work when ordered, or by seeing what to do in advance, like the statues of Daedalus in the story . . . master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and masters no need of slaves.” World literature, not to mention modern science fiction, contains a great many stories of this kind, ones that are often used to shed light upon basic questions about what it means to be alive, what it means to be conscious, what it means to be human, what membership in society entails. Within this tradition of thought Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein plays a pivotal role. Within popular culture, of , its story has spawned an astonishing range of novels, stories, movies, television programs, advertisements, toys, and costumes, most of which center upon images of monstrosity, horror and the mad scientist. Beyond these familiar manifestations, however, the novel offers a collection of deeply unsettling reflections upon the human condition, ones brought to focus by modern dreams of creating sentient, artificial, humanoid beings. In direct, provocative ways the book asks: What is the relationship between the creator and the thing created? What are the larger responsibilities of those who seek power through scientific knowledge and technological accomplishment? What happens when those responsibilities are not recognized or otherwise left unattended? Questions of this kind concern particular projects that involve attempts to create artificial devices that exhibit features and abilities similar to or even superior to ones associated with human beings. In a larger sense, however, the problems posed by the novel point to situations in which scientific technologies introduced into nature and society seem to run out of control, to achieve a certain autonomy, taking on a life of their own beyond the plans and intentions of the persons involved in their creation. As she addresses issues of this kind, the genius of Mary Shelley is to give voice not only to Victor Frankenstein, his family, friends and acquaintances, but to the creature that sprang from his work and after a time learns to speak, read and form his thoughts, eager to speak his mind about his situation. I do not know whether this is the first time in world literature that one finds a serious dialogue between an artificial creation and its creator. But first instance or not, it is a literary device that Shelley uses with stunning effectiveness. At their climatic meeting high in the Alps, the creature’s observations and arguments painfully articulate the perils of unfinished, imperfect, carelessly prepared artifice, suddenly released into the world, emphasizing the obligations of the creator as well as the consequences of insensitivity and neglect. I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king if thou wilt also perform thy part, that which thou owest me. You propose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine toward you and the rest of mankind. If you will comply with my conditions I will leave them and you at peace; but if you refuse, I will glut the maw of death, until it be satiated with the blood of your remaining friends. The creature goes on to explain that his greatest desire is to be made part of the human community, something that has been strongly, even brutally, denied him to that point. His stern admonition to Victor is to recognize that the invention of something powerful, ingenious, even marvelous cannot be the end of the work at hand. Thoughtful care must be given to its place in the sphere of human relationships. At first Victor recoils and bitterly denounces the creature’s demands that he recognize, affirm and fulfill his obligations. But as the threat of violent revenge becomes clear, Victor finally yields to the validity of the argument. “For the first time,” he admits, “I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” Following that flash of recognition the story careens toward a disastrous conclusion. Within the wreckage that envelops both Victor and his creature, the book reveals crucial insight, one before its time and with profound implications for similar projects in the future. It can be stated succinctly as follows: The quest for power through scientific technology often tends to override and obscure the recognition of the profound responsibilities that the possession of such power entails. Put even more simply: The impulse to power and control typically comes first, while the recognition of personal and collective moral obligation arrives later, if ever at all. Within that unfortunate gapbetween aspirations to power through science and belated recognitions of responsibilityarise generations of monstrosity. Mary Shelley’s insights on these matters were well ahead of their time and foreshadow some of the most ominous hazards and most ghastly calamities found along the path to modernity from the early 19th century up to the present day. . . One could offer a great many historical and contemporary illustrations of what I would call “Frankenstein’s problem.” An appropriate, highly practical, obviously troubling set of developments at present are found within a particular domain of scientific inquiry and application, a zone of works not all that dissimilar from the one the fictional Victor Frankenstein exploredtoday’s realm of advanced computerization, smart algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. . . During the past several years, notable scientists, engineers and luminaries in the technology business sector have stepped forward to express distress at what they see as dire risks that research in AI presents to the human species overall. In a BBC interview last year, Stephen Hawking warned, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. . . Humans, limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded by AI. . . One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.” In a live exchange on the internet, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates offered similar views. “I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence,” Gates wrote. “First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. . . A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern.” In the same vein, British inventor Clive Sinclair recently told the BBC, “Once you start to make machines that are rivaling and surpassing humans with intelligence, it’s going to be very difficult for us to survive. It’s just an inevitability.” Studies of and speculation about issues of this kind has inspired the creation of a collection of new research centers at leading universities. Among them are the Cambridge Center for the Study of Existential Risk and The Future of Life Institute at MIT. Taken together the shelf of books on AI and Robots, the systematic studies of the future of automation and employment, and the excited warnings about artificial devices superseding human beings as the key actors on the stage of world history are, in my view, a contemporary realization of the prescient concerns and warnings at the heart of Mary Shelley’s bookconcerns and warnings about the headlong flight from responsibility. Arts & Humanities Writing ENGLISH 101 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)