In the Oxford Companion to United States History, Paul S. Boyer explores the history of American automation and computerization and its contribution to american production. “…Americans’ historic receptivity to technological innovation and their need for machines to compensate for the scarcity of labor have made the United States a center for automation.” He elaborates on the role that technology has played in American history.

In the article, ”Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Work: Is This Time Different? As technological innovation has eliminated many types of jobs over the past few centuries, economies have evolved to create new jobs that have kept workers well employed. Is there reason to worry that the future will be different?”, Stuart W. Elliot questions the similarities between past technological innovations to those of today’s great triumphs. “Specifically, are AI and robots just like past technologies, causing shifts in the workplace but leaving the fundamental structure of work in place? Or are they unique in some way that suggests this time is different?” Here, he challenges whether our future holds any similarity to those that past innovations had promised.

In the New York Times article, “Fear Not the Coming of the Robots”, Steven Rattner argues that society should not fear the advancement of technology, but embrace it. “We mustn’t become a nation of robot warriors. That will merely guarantee that our incomes and standards of living will continue to stagnate.” Here, Rattner explains that there is no benefit in staying in the past, and by doing so, these people are pulling society back with them.

The Vox video titled, “The big debate about the future of work, explained,” the program takes into account differing perspectives, that of economists and futurists. They take into account past occurances of fearing technology. “And if you didn’t know what longshoremen are, that’s because there aren’t many of them left. Technology destroyed a lot of those jobs. And yet, we didn’t run out of work.” Throughout the video they explore why many jobs have died, but work persists in today’s world.

Rhetorical Situation

Seeing that this is from a book about United States history shows that the author thought that the topic of automation and computerization was an integral part of American history. The author starts from the beginning of automation, including the general public’s reaction through time, up until the humble beginnings of the twenty-first century. 

This article stems from “Issues in Science and Technology.” The author clearly sees this topic as an issue in science and technology. The question of whether future prospects would be different this time is still a very relevant question, according to the author. The author of this article includes statistics and experiments, testing both computers and humans. 

This news article is from the New York Times, a very reliable source for whatever you may be searching for. The birth of this article came from the author’s noticing of a certain trend. “Throughout history, aspiring Cassandras have regularly proclaimed that new waves of technological innovation would render huge numbers of workers idle, leading to all manner of economic, social and political disruption.” Rattner found that that couldn’t be further from the truth. The author includes some statistics to support his claim.

Like many videos on the Vox channel, it is to explain something that is happening on the media. According to the description of the video, “Some in Silicon Valley are even calling for a basic minimum income provided by the government for everyone, under the assumption that work will become scarce.” It is entirely possible that this video was in reaction to that event.

Purpose

“Automation and Computerization” aims to inform the reader about the effect automation and computerization has had on United States history. The author shares relevant perspectives about said topic. For instance he writes “At the end of the twentieth century, many Americans anticipated an ever more automated and computerized high-tech utopia. But other citizens, aware of actual and potential technological and environmental disasters, … at best, profoundly mixed blessings.” 

The author of this article is set off to prove a claim. Whether the direction that technology is bringing is not clear. “Only when we have assembled the insights from these three different perspectives on the capabilities of AI and robots–in addition to those from computer scientists and economists–will we be in a position to know whether this time is different.” Here, he brings about the point that without assistance from other professionals, we cannot arrive at a definitive conclusion.

The New York Times article aims to hopefully change minds. “That’s why, in the sweep of history, the human condition barely improved for centuries, until the early days of the industrial revolution, when transformational new technologies (the robots of their day) were introduced.” Rattner includes many convincing comments that point to technology actually adding to the job economy rather than taking away from it. He also further says that by not allowing for this revolution to occur, we are only preventing, the progress of the human experience.

This video aims to take apart the debate on the future of work and serve it plainly to the general public. The video also serves to present conflicting viewpoints on the subject at hand, and perhaps allow the viewer to come to their own conclusion.

Audience

“Automation and Computerization” is from an Oxford book about United States history, so I cannot see how you could come across this chapter if you weren’t searching for something related to such. The audience meant for this piece are those who wish to be informed, whether it be specifically automation/computerization or United States history in general. 

I would argue the same for “Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Work…”. However, Elliot uses more intermediate vocabulary and explores more complex ideas. “To understand whether AI and robots are likely to alter the fundamental structure of work, we need to know whether these new technologies will require changes in work skills that are feasible or not.” Elliot takes into account working-age adults’ literacy through the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), and comparing that to the extent that modern day artificial intelligence is able to produce.

More people would have read the New York Times column from 2014 than the two already mentioned sources. The newspaper is widely available to the general public not only in physical newsprint form, but also digitally, whether it be via a paid subscription or through an academic institution. More specifically, using a quote from before, “We mustn’t become a nation of robot warriors.”  There is an audience that Rattner is trying to reach out to, and I would say that the audience would be people who are resisting the technological revolution. By telling them that no good comes from doing that, the author is hoping to inject a wave of acceptance into the general public. 

The YouTube video is widely accessible. The audience aimed at by these videos are just those who wish to learn about the video topic. Through the use of moving graphics, easily comprehensible graphs, and voiceovers, these videos can perhaps reach out to younger audiences. This is unlike my first two sources, which are locked behind databases. Comparable to the New York Times column, the video format is much more friendly to those that may be intimidated by the dense appearance of the newspaper.

Genre 

The genre of the first source, is definitely non-fiction, but it could be categorized in a few other genres as well: maybe reference or textbook.

The genre of the second source, I would say, is an academic journal. It comes from a collection of academic journal called “Issues in Science and Technology” as previously mentioned. Furthermore, this volume of journals is published by the National Academy of Sciences.

The genre of the third source is a column. It is from a newspaper, and is not very lengthy. A column is a recurring piece within a newspaper, or some other publication. This specific piece was the one that took place on June 22, 2014. Columns usually present someone’s, in this case, Steven Rattner’s viewpoint or opinion.

The fourth source is a video. It is uploaded on YouTube, the arguably most used video-sharing website used worldwide (except in Asia). The video itself is professionally done, and is an easy and attractive way to present information to a large audience. Additionally, in the description, Vox lists their sources for the video, which adds to the reliability of the video.

The Stance 

Paul S. Boyner’s stance is neutral. When he is describing the events of the past, he does not interject with opinions or personal beliefs. Again, he is writing a reference; it is full of factual information.

The second source’s stance would be that of uncertainty. A previously mentioned quote showed that in order to come to a substantial conclusion, there would need to be more viewpoints supplied. Just to list some professions Elliott mentions, “First, we need to hear from psychologists to understand the capabilities that people have. Second, we need to hear from testing experts to understand the distribution of proficiency across the workforce for different types of skills. Finally, we need to hear from educators to understand what we know about improving human proficiency.” In the journal, Elliott contributes what he can as a researcher, and  calls out to other researchers to help answer the question concerning human work replication by robots.

The third source’s stance seems to be that while there is unemployment due to technology, but the same could be said about employment. “The trick is not to protect old jobs…but to create new ones. And since the invention of the wheel, that’s what has occurred.” according to the author, the fear of technology is what maybe preventing the growth of American productivity. 

The fourth source presents two opinions, that of an economist the says that the cycle of technology creating new jobs will continue and that there is nothing to fear, and that of futurists who think that this time, the future of work will be different. “Even if unemployment stays low, automation might worsen economic inequality…”. Additionally, Vox presents a different point concerning the government and productivity growth: most of it has been captured by a slim margin of the income distribution. This leads to the claim that automation, which improves overall productivity, may worsen income equality.

Bibliography

Boyer, Paul S. “Automation and Computerization.” The Oxford Companion to United States History, 2001. Oxford Reference, https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195082098.001.0001/acref-9780195082098-e-0127. Accessed 10 Sept. 2019

Elliott, Stuart W. “Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Work: Is This Time Different? As technological innovation has eliminated many types of jobs over the past few centuries, economies have evolved to create new jobs that have kept workers well employed. Is there reason to worry that the future will be different?” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 1, 2018, p. 40+. Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A562292393/GIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=GIC&xid=781b1a34. Accessed 10 Sept. 2019.

Rattner, Steven. “Fear Not the Coming of the Robots.” New York Times, 22 June 2014, p. 4(L). Gale In Context: Global Issues, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A372289043/GIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=GIC&xid=f1c4070e. Accessed 10 Sept. 2019.

Vox. “The big debate about the future of work, explained.” Vox, 13 Nov. 2017. YouTube, https://youtu.be/TUmyygCMMGA. Accessed 17 Sept. 2019.