Joy Response_Clinton wright

I would characterize Bill Joy’s primary concern being the idea that machines will take over as the dominant race on Earth. He fears that because this will probably happen gradually, humans will just accept the change and then not be able to do anything about it. While I do not agree with what he is saying, Joy explains many examples that have well-qualified individuals backing up the ideas. He uses meetings with friends and other specialists as evidence to set up the problem. He combines anecdotes and examples at the same time when he does this. He tells the anecdote of when he actually talked to the person about what they thought and then follows up the anecdote with the example of what they wrote. He uses this technique when telling the reader about his trip to Los Angeles to meet and talk to his friend Danny Hillis. He also leads into the article with the anecdote and explanation of Ray Kurzweil and his book. A time when Joy just uses an anecdote is when he tells the story about his childhood and the first time he saw Star Trek. The most effective technique is when he combines both the explanation and the anecdote; this is most effective because it provides the reader with a proper background of who provides the insight.

The issues discussed in “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” are less relevant now because robots are not progressing as fast as thought eleven years ago. Even though technology has greatly increased, it has grown in a different way than what the professionals from the article believed it would. Nanotechnology has grown but not in a way that will quickly lead to robots, especially ones that have consciousness. Technologies invented by Apple and other computer companies are impressive and much more different than in 2000, but are still not able to take over humans as a dominant race. The closest robot or computer being able to challenge humans is Watson, the supercomputer that was designed by IBM. While Watson is incredible, the computer is huge and takes up nearly a room just so that it can function. Machines will have to become much smaller and maintain efficiencies like Watsons’ if they are to challenge human beings. Because computers have not grown as exponentially better as thought they would in 2000, my take is that the problem is now less relevant than as it was eleven years ago.