If you think you’re doing well, you should know a robot could do so much better; but is that so bad? Kevin Kelly doesn’t seem to think so, as presented in his article “Better than Human: Why Robots Will - and Must - Take Our Jobs”. Kelly recognizes the increasing automation in the workplace, and sees it as a benefit not a loss. Robots replacing human jobs must occur in his mind because the benefits greatly outweigh the shallow changes. Kelly takes on a refreshing opinion further presented by emotional appeals and logical reasoning but fails to persuade the reader with lack of counter arguments and misguided confidence.
Kelly does well presenting an emotionally driven argument with logical reasoning. Kelly starts with a powerful question. “Imagine that 7 out of 10 working Americans got fired tomorrow. What would they all do?” (Kelly, 299). By starting off with such an emotionally charged question the mood for the following article is set. Kelly asks us to imagine the unthinkable. Our jobs are sacred, if we can’t have anything …show more content…
Kelly seems to have the idea that his argument speaks for itself and is clearly correct solely because it’s pro-robot. He says “Machines are acquiring smarts” (301). This simple but opinionated phrase shows the clear bias and misguided confidence in himself and his own argument. He decides to be casual about this but there’s so much wrong with it. He does go on to explain why he says this, but his explanation revolves around one example which he milks for several pages. This example is the only solid and reputable one which signifies the misguided confidence of Kelly. Kelly tries to address how our current service jobs will also be taken over by robots, but again, they’re opinions with no factual backing. They present an interesting idea but the confidence is cocky and there’s nothing that he seems to be standing on that is
Kelly does well presenting an emotionally driven argument with logical reasoning. Kelly starts with a powerful question. “Imagine that 7 out of 10 working Americans got fired tomorrow. What would they all do?” (Kelly, 299). By starting off with such an emotionally charged question the mood for the following article is set. Kelly asks us to imagine the unthinkable. Our jobs are sacred, if we can’t have anything …show more content…
Kelly seems to have the idea that his argument speaks for itself and is clearly correct solely because it’s pro-robot. He says “Machines are acquiring smarts” (301). This simple but opinionated phrase shows the clear bias and misguided confidence in himself and his own argument. He decides to be casual about this but there’s so much wrong with it. He does go on to explain why he says this, but his explanation revolves around one example which he milks for several pages. This example is the only solid and reputable one which signifies the misguided confidence of Kelly. Kelly tries to address how our current service jobs will also be taken over by robots, but again, they’re opinions with no factual backing. They present an interesting idea but the confidence is cocky and there’s nothing that he seems to be standing on that is