# data[].attributes.body
In his article "How Confucianism Could put Fears about Artificial Intelligence to Bed", Tom Cassauwers describes his theory that the modern fear of A.I taking over humanity is countered by eastern school of thought. He argues that in western media, we have portrayed A.I to be something that will develop a desire for freedom from the human race, and this media has created a fear in western society of A.I in the future. In eastern countries, however, A.I is seen as a friend to humans, and develops over time to become more useful to us.

"Western culture has had a long history of individualism, warlike use of technology, Christian apocalyptic thinking and a strong binary between body and soul. These elements might explain the West’s obsession with the technological apocalypse and its opposite: techno-utopianism."

"Both Confucianism and Buddhism potentially open up the way for nonhumans to reach the status of humans. In Confucianism, the state of reaching personhood “is not a given. You need to work to achieve it,” says Wong. The person’s attitude toward certain ethical virtues determines whether or not they reach the status of a human."

"Just as The Terminator captures the West’s mindset, pop culture captures the East’s approach. Astro Boy, a Japanese manga series from the 1950s and ’60s, deals with sensitive technologies like robots and nuclear technology (the Japanese title translates to “Mighty Atom”). Yet it doesn’t have an apocalyptic streak. Robots work as companions to humans, and nuclear technology is used for good — and that emerged just a decade after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'

What does Tom Cassauwers think A.I will become in the future?

Will our fear of A.I be something that future generations condemn us for?

Why do you think development of A.I in eastern countries will calm everyone down? A.I is A.I no matter what country, right?

When I was reading the text, I was kind of surprised how all my opinions on A.I were derived from media. I never stopped to think about the dangers of A.I myself, all I do is take what I hear and absorb it.

# data[].attributes.headline
What will future generations condemn us for?

# data[].attributes.subject
What will future generations condemn us for?

# data[].attributes.body
In Kwame Appiah's article "What will future generations condemn us for?", he talks about the things that we outlaw now but were normalized years ago. The examples the main examples he uses to illustrate his point are things like domestic violence, homophobia, and slavery. He uses the rest of the article to describe how we could have something like that going on right now, and simply be unaware.

"Looking back at such horrors, it is easy to ask: What were people thinking?"

"not every disputed institution or practice is destined to be discredited. And it can be hard to distinguish in real time between movements, such as abolition, that will come to represent moral common sense and those, such as prohibition, that will come to seem quaint or misguided. "

"It's not as though we're unaware of what we're doing to the planet: We know the harm done by deforestation, wetland destruction, pollution, overfishing, greenhouse gas emissions -- the whole litany. Our descendants, who will inherit this devastated Earth, are unlikely to have the luxury of such recklessness."

# data[].attributes.body
In Kurt Vonnegut's short story "The Lie",  he writes about Eli and his life as a part of the wealthy Remenzel family. The short story is about Eli getting rejected from the school that all his family members attend, and him trying to hide this fact from his parents. His parent's eventually find out, and end up accepting it and moving on. The ending reminds me of my calculus class, where the concept is very easy for me to understand, but can be difficult for others (as in Eli's dad) to understand. Moving on is something that most people would do in that situation, but for people like Eli's dad, they would have to go down kicking and screaming. The story does a good job of building Eli's parents in a way that creates a suitable ending, acting a lot like my parents would in a similar situation. I appreciate how Vonnegut made the father an eccentric person, but at the same time giving him a few down to earth qualities, making us feel at least a little bit of empathy towards him at the end.

# data[].attributes.body
In "Why Trolley Problems Matter", Geoff Keeling describes and debunks 4 arguments made against using trolley problems to decide the morality of AV's (Autonomous Vehicles). The arguments he debunks are the "Not Going to Happen" argument, the "Moral Difference" argument, the "Impossible Deliberation" argument, and the "Wrong Question" argument.

"... trolley cases are relevant to the moral design problem even if AVs will never encounter trolley cases in practice."

"... the categorical moral difference between trolley cases and real-world collisions is not sufficient to render trolley cases of little or no relevance to the moral design problem."

"... there is a place for trolley cases in the ethics of AVs. But it is rather different from the place that philosophers have assigned it in the discussion so far."

How would the idea of Moral Spheres play into the design of AV's? Would the AV favor a member of the drivers family over 3 strangers?

How can we be sure that AV's only make defensible decisions? How can we account for the infinite amount of scenarios and AV can be faced with by simply using the trolley problem?

How would you define "risky" and "non-risky" situations to people outside of the field. Wouldn't the definitions differ from person to person?

Reading the text was interesting, as I was introduced to arguments I had never thought about. I appreciate how well Keeling initially presented the arguments he eventually debunked, as he gave them a fair chance and made them sound very reasonable. I also wrote 3 pages of notes that are going unappreciated :(.

The article reminds me of my computer science class, with the various arguments being similar to people throwing solutions at the "problem" of the trolley problems validity (or lack thereof) and the "professor" Geoff Keeling telling each of them why their solution wouldn't work.