Stakeholder #1

Stakeholder #1: Zuckerberg.

biography.com markzuckerberg, Unknown Date; Public Domain.

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words? If they're an individual, vividly describe how they look, what they wear, how they move. Tell us how they sound, how they talk, what their mannerisms are. Conjure them in our mind's eye, by appealing to at least THREE of our FIVE senses. If the stakeholder is an insitution or group, then describe the institution and how it appears in the world. How do people encounter this group or institution, digitally or physically? Describe their website or headquarters or something else that physically represents the group to the world at large.

The primary stakeholder is none other than Mark Zuckerberg. He was the one who revived the whole discussion regarding artificial intelligence when he went on his Facebook on January 27, 2016 and announced his plans to make a Jarvis – like robot that would assist him with household chores. The curly-haired, intense, yet purposefully-underdressed (statement towards where he puts his priorities, in his work that is) man exudes confidence through both his body language and his voice. I could only imagine that his house would smell like a fresh load of laundry. The man works strictly by the books, and even though he is constantly innovating, he rarely deviates from what he knows. This is evident in his speech patterns, constantly using compound sentences to further advance his complex inner-workings in his brain. The timbre in his voice is extremely confident, never bending, always speaking as if he is the man in charge. Even though this was published over Facebook, you still get the feeling that he has all the answers. The only time he ever poses questions, he answers them in the next sentence after. There are no questions that he fails to address in his primary argument, further demonstrating his status as the man in charge.  

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote sould be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.

ALL THREE QUOTES ARE TAKEN FROM HIS FACEBOOK PAGE LINKED HERE.

Claim 1: 'Simply put, today's AI is good at recognizing patterns and bad at what we would call "common sense".'

Claim 2:'Unsupervised learning is a long term focus of our AI research team at Facebook, and it remains an important challenge for the whole AI research community.'

Claim 3:'We should not be afraid of AI. Instead, we should hope for the amazing amount of good it will do in the world. It will saves lives by diagnosing diseases and driving us around more safely. It will enable breakthroughs by helping us find new planets and understand Earth's climate. It will help in areas we haven't even thought of today.'

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.

The legitimacy of claims 1 and 2 are irrefutable. The vast majority of the head technological minds have met at the general consensus that the capacity of humans to learn freely, that is to employ common sense, is what discerns the robots from us, the alphas. However, claim 3 is the center of the controversy. If claims 1 and 2 were setups, this would be the climax. "We should hope" is where he demonstrates the signs of uncertainty that breaks from the unbending tone of his voice. Imagine a deep-voiced, confident man... this is his voice crack. This is when the actor in the big production breaks character. He then revisits his past tone, and talks about how "it WILL enable breakthroughs by helping us find new planets", etc. etc. etc...

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?

Musk, Wozniak, and Hawking in 2015 urged for the ban on warfare and AI autonomous weapons. In one article, they compare the AI today to the "Kalashnikovs of tomorrow". The exact same thing happened over 70 years ago, when Albert Einstein begged FDR not to use the atomic weapons for fear of mass destruction, which was inevitable. Mark Zuckerberg completely disagrees at the core philosophy with these men and their attempts to halt progress.