Refutation and Concession Example

Refutation and Concession Example

Instructions:
1. Answer the following questions.
2. Write your own refutation and concession.

1. What is my thesis?
Although computers are constantly evolving, they will never be as powerful as the human brain.

2. What is the opposite position?
Eventually, computers will equal or surpass human brains.

3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) Moore's Law (Computer processors double in power every year). b) Kurzweil, Google's futurologist and singularity poster boy. c) Advances in robot technology mirroring human behavior.

4. How will I counter those arguments?

a) Not an actual law, just an observation and prediction that has so far been true. b) Kurzweil is a publicity figure and promotes the idea of a singularity as a tool of self promotion. c) Robotics and CPU power are not parallel. 

My Refutation and Concession

Obviously my opinion is not the popular one, despite being the correct one. There are plenty of people who will dispute my position with examples from Ron Kurzweil, or Moore's law, or various recent advances in robotic technology that mimics human behavior. Of course, these arguments are all shortsighted and simply incorrect. First of all, Moore's Law - the prediction that computer power will double every year created by Intel cofounder Gorden E. Moore in 1965 - is really not a law. While it has proven roughly accurate so far, there is no reason to expect that this trend will continue. It's like saying that because the wind has been blowing South for the past hour, it will continue to do the same for eternity. In fact a more recent head of Intel, Bob Colwell, predicted the end of Moore's law to come in the year 2020 due to practical limitations of the physical world. Computers will continue to get more powerful, but they will never reach the computing power necessary to compete with a human brain because of the fact that a transistor can never be created at a size smaller than 5 nanometers. Perhaps my most likely detractor would be Ron Kurzweil, the singularity fanboy that no doubt most other detractors would quickly cite if asked to defend their position. The problem is Kurzweil is little more than a science fiction author with a reputable employer (Google). The truth is that Kurzweil's articulate predictions for the expansion of technology are mere conjecture with no solutions to the barriers people like Bob Colwell anticipate. Perhaps the most obvious reason that he would never concede to the improbability of his hypothesis is that his entire professional career and reputation are staked on the hope that one day the singularity - the moment computers reach consciousness and network together then begin multiplying in numbers and power exponentially - will become a reality. Lastly, and frankly the most laughable counterargument to my position would come from the belief that the modern trend in robotics to humanize their subjects will logically extend to cpus. If we make robots that look like humans, doesn't it make sense that our computers will act like humans, too? No, it doesn't make sense. In fact, we've been copying human movement in primitive toys since 2000 BC in Egypt and self propelled windup robots since the 15th century. The pursuit to artificial intelligence is a unique field that has been a subject of sci fi until only very recently. Humans like making things that look like humans and we always will, but we will never make a computer as smart as a human.