Narration Example

Instructions:
1. Write your thesis.
2. Answer questions 1, 2 and 3.
3. Write your Narration.

My persuasive argument thesis is: Although computers are constantly evolving, they will never be as powerful as the human brain.

1. What do people already know about my topic?

Everyone knows that computers are extremely powerful. Everyone knows they are vital to modern life. We have computers in our phones, watches, air-con and some of us have them in our bodies. People are exposed to sci-fi movies and books where computers take over the world and enslave people, so some people have an irrational fear about the future of computers. Also, even though we use computers so frequently, it should be noted that many people have no idea how computers really work. 

2. What research has already been done about my topic?

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/dnnvision-071414.aspx - Good example of computers learning, especially the speed of growth of computer ability and knowledge. Still limited to very niche application, though.
https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/faq/computing - Interesting new effort at recreating the human brain, and also a nice list of its limitations and challenges to create it.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/computers-cleverer-than-humans-15-years - prominent specialist's opinion that disagrees with my own. I can mention that his career and reputation benefit from such predictions. 

3. What are the implications of my argument (What if I'm right? What if I'm right and people ignore me?)

Humans will remain at the top of the food chain. Computers will be incapable of autonomy. Technology will evolve, humans will need to adapt, but we will never be outsmarted by machines. If people ignore me, they will waste a lot of time, energy and stress worrying about an unrealistic future. They will ignore more realistic threats like global warming or political 

My Narration

Since Samuel Butler first expressed his fears of the rapid development of machinery, humans have fixated on this imagined future where we are enslaved or worse by our own creations. Considering he said, "There is no security against the ultimate development of mechanical consciousness," in the 19th century, before computers, his words proved surprisingly salient. Despite the fact that computers are indisputably growing in terms of computational power at an incredible rate, there is no reason to realistically fear a computer that can work autonomously in any meaningful way, let alone outsmart a human. Consider Microsoft's Project Adam. The software can sort and organize millions of photos quickly and accurately by analyzing the images. It can distinguish between extremely similar looking breeds of dogs in a photo, for example. Practically this means you might one day be able to do an image search for a sweater you want, oh, say, "a mauve cashmere sweater with 3/4 lengths sleeves," and without any cumbersome text based tagging or sorting the search engine will analyze every single image on the internet and parse out all the cashmere sweaters that aren't mauve or have full sleeves. An impressive accomplishment. This represents one of the most incredible achievements of practical computing today. However, even this breakthrough in computing technology does nothing to narrow the gap between computer and human intelligence. The technology cannot operate independently of human involvement. The technology is still responding entirely to human based input, on human based instructions with human programmers and human technology feeding it, like electricity or data from the internet. 

Or, to look at an example of cutting edge technology trying more directly to mirror the power of the human brain, let's consider the Human Brain Project's effort to recreate the human brain's neural network by networking millions of computers. Their hope is that one day the network will be so sophisticated that it will have the same plasticity and power of a human brain. Even though there are real people with real plans to accomplish this, on their own website they acknowledge how unfeasible this project is in reality, and why even if it is created it will not really rival human brain power. First, the power consumption of their current model is more than an obstacle, it is a concrete barrier. The technology required would require hundreds of millions of times the power of the human brain. That means that to power one single hypothetical brain, it would require the entire power production of several small countries combined - for one "brain". 

If we examine the thinkers that predict a world of computers thinking on a human level we encounter a mostly deluded camp of sci-fi lovers who base their theories on Star Wars inspired fantasy more than any facts. Even the serious and respected thinkers, like Ray Kurzweil, Google's "futurologist" (Even the title invites mockery, doesn't it?) have questionable motives when they make predictions about computers that think like people in 15 years. The existence of his job relies on the hope that one day computers can reach that level. Similarly, Kurzweil's reputation would suffer if the idea that computer's will match our thinking power became common place. Certainly The Guardian would be less interested in him.

Artificial intelligence, and the abiding fears of computer-powered dominion over humans, are common place and popular fodder for idle discussion. However, when considered in reality these fears are misguided, and the hope of a computer as smart as a human is absurd.