Karim 1

Noah Karim

Professor Steffen Guenzel

ENC 1102H

15 November 2018

Rhetorical Analysis of “Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs”

In “Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs,” Kai-Fu Lee focuses

on artificial intelligence (AI) in China and the inevitable integration of AI into the nations of the

United States and China. The events Lee witnessed and describes in his article provide

background to the current debate that is AI and the fear of its integration and potential

unemployment. Lee claims that AI will displace a large number of jobs and advocates for

training of employees to own jobs that AI cannot be integrated into. My research encompasses

multiple perspectives on the ethics behind implementing AI through the harmful and beneficial

effects it brings. Lee’s article supports my claim that AI should be integrated as it has many

beneficial effects, but we as society should be prepared for such a drastic effect it brings about.

Lee’s article is written under a certain context which he works in to advance his argument

in an effective manner. Firstly, the exigence of this article is to illuminate and affirm the current

circumstances of integrating AI and how adapt to the changes it brings. Lee’s audience for his

article contains different readers. There are those who are part of the Lee’s current discourse

whose research and ventures pertain to integrating AI. Researching more about Lee, he is one of

the leading experts in AI, having worked for Apple, Microsoft, Google, and completed several

articles pertaining AI. In addition, he is the founder and CEO of Sinovation Ventures and

president of the Sinovation Ventures Artificial Intelligence Institute. Yet, there exists an
 Karim 2

audience that are affected by the integration of AI and possible unemployment who lack Lee’s

knowledge and expertise. This is due to the accessibility of the article. Lee’s article is located

within the MIT Technology Review web journal, allowing access to researchers within his

discourse; however, due to publication in web format, this article became accessible to the

general public or those not within Lee’s discourse, further expanding the Lee’s audience of the

article. Lee works within this context to tailor his article to address both groups. This entails

informing people about AI, but also limiting the language or jargon used in his discourse. In

addition, Lee must also argue to researchers in his field that they should be heeding his

discussion. Lee makes use of the opportune moment and how the integration of AI is in his own

words as “the fastest transition humankind has experienced” (9). This acts as a positive

constraint that Lee uses to advance his argument by connecting it to the urgency that action must

that place. Lee’s rhetorical situation surrounding his article is quite similar to my own, in terms

of reaching out to audience not well versed in the discourse of AI research. Analyzing the types

of evidence Lee includes and the moves he makes as a writer to convey his argument will help

me structure sections of my research paper that pertain Lee’s perspective of the debate of AI, and

what evidence and logic are effective for supporting my claim.

Lee begins his analysis of the current debate with an experience of an American Uber

driver asking “how long would it take for autonomous vehicles to take away his job” (Lee 8).

Lee’s inclusion of this experiences serves two purposes. The first purpose, Lee uses this

experience to bridge into the territory surrounding his topic of interest. Lee expands on his topic

by stating that if he had been asked that question in China, then the answers would be different.

This is where Lee makes his claim, that due to competitive nature of these two countries, AI is

guaranteed to come (Lee 9). The second purpose of including his experience is to establish
 Karim 3

credibility as someone well knowledgeable in this discourse. The article makes up for a non-

discourse reader’s lack of knowledge of Lee and his background, by using the anecdote as a way

to connect to the audience. However, Lee’s profession acts as a bias for allowing the integration

of AI. Being part of organizations such as the Sinovation Ventures Artificial Intelligence

solidifies what stance he takes. Lee must also work in that context to effectively convey his

message. Moreover, Lee’s claim entails proving that China has or will become a lead researcher

in AI, illuminating the competitive nature of the United States and China, and explain why we as

society aren’t ready for this transition.

Content analysis of the Lee’s article suggests that he engages in an inductive argument.

Lee provides four main points to establish that China is in position to become a lead researcher

in the field of AI. The grounds in which he uses for evidence are those of observations and

quantified data as well as logic. Lee claims “China has a huge army of young people coming into

AI,” (8), and for that reason the amount of AI related publications are doubling (8). To back that

evidence, Lee references Face++, “a Chinese face-recognition startup” (8) and how that company

won a computer vision challenges ahead of teams such as “Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and

Carnegie Mellon University” (8). Lee’s second point for establishing China as a lead researcher,

is the sheer amount of data China produces to be used by AI. Lee states, “In China, shared

bicycles generate 30 terabytes of sensor data in their 50 million paid rides per day—that’s

roughly 300 times the data being generated in the US” (8) and that “A very good scientist with a

ton of data will beat a super scientist with a modest amount of data” (8). This is backed by more

evidence supporting an initiative to “accelerate” (Lee 8) the integration of AI in China. As Lee

states, “The Chinese government’s stated plan is to catch up with the US on AI technology and

applications by 2020 and to become a global AI innovation hub by 2030” (Lee 8). Evidence such
 Karim 4

as this makes Lee’s initial claim more probable that China is catching up to the United States in

terms of AI growth as it will become a lead researcher in AI. This can be included in my research

paper as I focus on the effects of AI on economic relations between countries. Since China, a

competitor of the United States, is adapting AI, the United States will surely follow. Lee’s

backing stems from the ability of the audience to connect with the grounds. Because work is

changing in China, the same might happen in the US. Lee’s claim of AI is coming has limitations

to its scope. The grounds and backing support the plausibility and possibility aspect of qualifiers.

However, Lee’s scope for the article is limited in where does Lee’s claim apply or the limitation

in his claim. In what societies does AI growth not apply and what jobs do apply? In regards to

Lee’s rebuttal, he challenges the opposing view of certain jobs being correlated to adapting and

integrating AI into human work. However, this is the case for few jobs, and as Lee states that it

“will be true for certain professions—doctors, lawyers—but most jobs won’t fall in that

category” (9). Despite being a lead researcher in the field of AI, he does not offer enough ways

to adapt to the integration of AI into the difference areas of work, weakening his credibility and

his argument. In regards to Lee’s counterclaims, he offers no grounds for the counter argument

that addresses a population denying the potential harm of AI or growth of employment. Lee also

lacks grounds that affirm a distinction between jobs such as doctors and blue and white collar

workers. This has a negative effect on Lee’s rhetoric because the claim can’t be seen as

plausible. However, Lee states that “It will soon be obvious that half of our job tasks can be done

better at almost no cost by AI and robots” (9). This warning doesn’t support the claim, thus

doesn’t increase the effectiveness of the rhetoric. In addition, Lee states there are those who deny

any issue to begin with such as the largest tech companies (9). Lee offers no grounds as to why
 Karim 5

these tech companies express this stance, but the assumption is made that a company offering a

product won’t negatively criticize their own product.

There are many insights to gain from Lee’s article. Lee conveys points about both sides

of the binary argument, of whether or not AI should be implemented for the effects it may bring.

Lee’s most important takeaway is that integration of AI will persist into our everyday jobs, and

rather than deny this claim, society should learn to adapt to the changes AI brings about. This

text answers my main research question regarding the effects of AI and can be used as a

counterargument to the opposition that AI won’t displace jobs. However, because of the lack of

grounds for the second half of Lee’s claim, another source will be needed for some of the points

such as AI companies denying potential job displacement. Lee’s claim of retraining workers can

serve as grounds or backing for my own claim of integrating AI, but also adapting to the changes

it brings. That, along with other sources, will serve to convey two out of three perspectives that

will be present in my research paper of retraining workers and adapting to utilize AI in the

workplace.

Work Cited

Lee, Kai-Fu LeeKai-Fu. “Tech Companies Should Stop Pretending AI Won't Destroy Jobs.”

MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 1 Mar. 2018,

www.technologyreview.com/s/610298/tech-companies-should-stop-pretending-ai-wont-

destroy-jobs/.