The element of advanced technology and robotics has been debated over the years. Much of the significant discussion has focused on its influence and whether it is meant to doom humanity. In the article “Can we avoid a digital apocalypse?” by Sam Harris, the author believes that continued production and advancement of computers will one day require building robotics that surpass human intelligence. He further claims that these robots will destroy humanity, giving a relevant example with the replacement of human labor with computerized robotics, capable of performing tasks faster and more precisely. On the other hand, the article “Thinking does not imply subjugation” by Steven Pinker focuses on the human power to use reason. Steven further questions how the reasoning process was carried out. He notes that the whole human nature of thinking and having a certain belief alone cannot be transferred to any machine. At this point, he proves that no day will a computer, no matter how advanced, surpass human intelligence and if it can, it cannot threaten human life in any way. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay. I find Steven Pinker more convincing on this point; it draws a distinct line between humans and machines. Although there is a risk that computers will somehow exceed human performance, they can only function within limited programming. He gives an example of an AL system, which in no way involves a duplication of a human being. A machine is limited to a particular function and, although it may exceed human reasoning and capabilities, its functionality cannot extend beyond the programmed line of the task. A good example is an automobile machine that cannot attract a soul mate. The author recognizes the risks of unemployment linked to the introduction of robotics. When it comes to calculations and calculations, it recognizes the fact that there are machines and technologies that make estimates accurately. However, where the hell do roboticists design robots without protections? It gives an excellent example of existing machinery and measures to protect against harm to humans. Previously, technology experts predicted that over time technology would surpass humans, but apparently none of this happened due to safeguards. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Personalized Essay According to Steven, robotics cannot reason. There is no risk of a robot harming humanity because a human can provoke and act. Speculation on the possibility of an AI system surpassing the human builder is theoretically dreamy but practically impossible. According to Steven, its manufacturer could predict such a scenario early enough and brake it accordingly. It questions the ability of robots to reason. Steven explains how technology could never outsmart its creator without being controlled. It also highlights man's unconscious and naturalistic power over reason. If existing technology has not outperformed or harmed a human, why and how would its progress pose a threat to the human who built it.!