Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Analysis
A multitude of different movies portrays Artificial Intelligence (AI) as something to be feared; an entity that would be the demise of humanity. Despite what these movies portray, it is up for dispute whether AI is a threat to humanity. AI is becoming more commonplace and more advanced everyday both in the real and virtual world. Multiple different AI entities have previously malfunctioned and caused issues. A multitude of groups of individuals feels that restrictions should be placed on AI entities, while others believe that AI poses no threat to any individual. Whether or not, AI is a threat is still up to question. AI is commonly attributed to movies such as Terminator or Space Oddity. As a result, when the future of AI is ever debated,
…show more content…
Additionally, Lincoln Spector uses in-depth detail in his article about WPA 2. However, this document does have a flaw as no information or data contained in the document are sourced. This would force readers to simply rely on the fact that this information comes from a trusted source. This in return can make the credibility and strength of the document questionable. Despite these flaws, Lincoln Spector’s credibility is plausible. Additionally, Patrick Klepek is another credible source of information; Patrick Klepek is a writer from Kotaku- a well-known company. As a result of this, the content seems more believable and credible. In addition, Patrick Klepek also uses various quotes and multiple different sources. As a result, these things raise the strength and credibility of the argument. Patrick Klepek even includes a video to explain how Denuvo works. Although no document is flawless, there is little statistical data included. In consequence of this, the document loses minor credibility. To conclude, both documents can be seen as credible …show more content…
The author behind the document, John P., works for Tech News World, a company with a trusted reputation. Straight off the back, this makes the document already strong and credible. John P. also uses varies different quotes to support his argument; therefore, making it stronger. In spite of this, John P. fails to credit the sources of the quotes; making the document less credible. Not only is this document overall credible, but also the YouTube video created by Mathew Patrick. Mathew Patrick is a well-known theorist on YouTube and is considered a reliable source. One of the strongest qualities that Mathew Patrick offers is that he sources all data included in the video. This ultimately, substantially increases the credibility of the video due to the fact that it is not often that videos or documents source all of their data. In the end, both documents have great credibility and strength in their
Additionally, Lincoln Spector uses in-depth detail in his article about WPA 2. However, this document does have a flaw as no information or data contained in the document are sourced. This would force readers to simply rely on the fact that this information comes from a trusted source. This in return can make the credibility and strength of the document questionable. Despite these flaws, Lincoln Spector’s credibility is plausible. Additionally, Patrick Klepek is another credible source of information; Patrick Klepek is a writer from Kotaku- a well-known company. As a result of this, the content seems more believable and credible. In addition, Patrick Klepek also uses various quotes and multiple different sources. As a result, these things raise the strength and credibility of the argument. Patrick Klepek even includes a video to explain how Denuvo works. Although no document is flawless, there is little statistical data included. In consequence of this, the document loses minor credibility. To conclude, both documents can be seen as credible …show more content…
The author behind the document, John P., works for Tech News World, a company with a trusted reputation. Straight off the back, this makes the document already strong and credible. John P. also uses varies different quotes to support his argument; therefore, making it stronger. In spite of this, John P. fails to credit the sources of the quotes; making the document less credible. Not only is this document overall credible, but also the YouTube video created by Mathew Patrick. Mathew Patrick is a well-known theorist on YouTube and is considered a reliable source. One of the strongest qualities that Mathew Patrick offers is that he sources all data included in the video. This ultimately, substantially increases the credibility of the video due to the fact that it is not often that videos or documents source all of their data. In the end, both documents have great credibility and strength in their