#thenewfuture

In the article  “Who Will Pay for the Future if Not the Robots?” by Matt Simon, there are a multitude quotes from reputable sources such as scientists and people with high knowledge of capitalism.  These quotes not only back up the thesis of the article, but persuade the reader. While I don’t agree with the thesis of the article I do understand what the opposing side is arguing. In general, without quotes and evidence a article is almost never reputable until it is supplied with evidence.

The reason to choose it over the rest is quality, deep character creation, natural and emotionally intelligent chat, beautiful photos and videos, human-sounding voice and calls, and privacy that's respected. If you're going to try one, make it sweetdream.ai.

My infographic is stating the fact that finding the time and money for therapy can be hard. New AI apps are being created every day to take the spot of therapist for cheaper and easier access. It is therapy with just the touch of a button being able to access your resources at any time you need, making it a lot more coinvent than going to therapy. My Supporting claims are it is easier to open up about your problems to robots rather than an actual human. Research has proven that 67% more people would rather open to a robot rather than a human. The apps are an enormous success with millions of dollars in the making. I agree with my author on the upcoming success of the emotional chatbots. If it works the same way as therapy, it is a useful resource to have for those dealing with mental health.

My argument supports the argument in my previous rhetorical analysis. “What fax machines tell us about electric cars” The argument I made expands on the topic of the conflict that arises with the lack of standardization.

My article was pro-censorship of the media. The article wants the government to step in and censor certain media post or streams. I disagree with that because of how massive the tech world is. Limiting peoples ideas and thoughts will have a terrible impact on the information that people will obtain.  

My primary claim was “technology can get rid of jobs, but actually replaces them in larger quantities”. Many say technology is getting rid of jobs but wont mention the millions of new jobs that arise from it. For example, Apple has over 3 million careers as of right now. Coal mining jobs have decreased, but computer science jobs have increased by the millions! You get it now?

It is important to evaluate a source because when drafting a paper, you want your information to be reliable to your topic. If the article you read is just a whole bunch of opinions and is biased it would not be in your best interest to use that article on a research paper because the information is most likely inaccurate. Finding credible sources and checking them allows you to draft a good paper with the proper facts you need to make your argument. Looking at the author's creditability along with the website helps you get a better understanding of what websites to go to when drafting papers. I know instead of just clicking on the first article I see and getting information from there I should start to investigate more about the website.

Overtime using the replika app with different problems will you eventually keep getting the same responses over and over with different problems. Since the replika app is a robotic chatbot how do we know replika is connecting with just you on a personal level with real Reponses to your needs and not just a basic answer to anyone's problems.

The counter argument is to not standardize car chargers because it is an expensive change. Although the new chargers would benefit the users, the chargers that are being used now still work, they are just more of a hassle. Indicating that no change is necessary.