Free Essay Reviews is a free education resource for students who want help writing college essays.

SIGN UP to post your essay and get expert feedback from a professor.

Recent Essays

February 17

December 10

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16
Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.
We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
The Human Mind Will Always Be Superior To Machines - With A Free Essay Review

The Human Mind Will Always Be Superior To Machines Because Machines Are Only Tools Of Human Minds.

The utility of tool is often regarded as a landmark of human being, which distinguished human from other inferior species, while machinery, plays a more important role in the evolution of human being as it is often linked to the epoch-marking incident – Industrial Revolution.

In the past three centuries, machines, which are created by human being always “worked” as servants – some are made to do monotonous and onerous jobs for human being, such as household appliances, copywriters and machines in industry; some are made to facilitate our daily life, such as transportation tools, mobile phones and computers,

It should be confessed that machines sometimes can perform number-crunching and other rote cerebral tasks with greater accuracy and speed than human minds ever could. However, high efficiency is not the equivalent of superiority. But for the intelligence of human being, machines were just a pile of rubbish. For that matter, it is unreasonable to consider machines – the product of human’s innovation, superior to it creators.

Machines, designed to liberate people from complex and exhausting task, are completely programmed by human mind, unable to think independently. Take Dark Blue as an example. Though succeeded in defeating the world-class chess player, it could only be called artificial-intelligence, for the fact that Dark blue, whose calculating ability was endowed by scientist, could not act on its own will. From my point view, the winner is not Dark Blue but hundreds of scientists creating the machine. No wonder Gary Kasparov failed – it is really hard for one brain to compete with so many people with high IQ. Lacking logical thinking ability and creativity, machines cannot write novels or paint oils, which are the most important character of human being that leaded to the exploration in unknown area and the progress in scientific area.

Another character human cannot endue these machines with is emotion. We human being is often influenced by the surroundings – for example, playing with children relieves us while failing in the exam greatly depresses us. Machines, which can never react to the environment as animals do, are even inferior to mammals at this rate, not to say us – human being.

When talking about the relationship between human and machines tomorrow, scientific fiction writers often describe machine an evil with great danger. Personally, I think these writers are just intended to add interest to their stories making it more absorbing, and to some extent, warn people against entirely relying on machinery. Real situation is not likely to develop the same way. Just as the problem of clone, though invoked many controversies, no serious problem has appeared so far thanks to morality and timely law. With self-restraint of scientists, effort spared by government and appropriate use of technology, I can see no evidence that the manufacture of machines will lose control in the future.

Machines may not arouse catastrophe but as every coin has two sides, machines, while bringing about great convenience, are sure to evoke some troubles. Have not you seen the scene that some teenagers lock themselves in the room all day long playing computer games? Although we are not inferior to machines, we should be careful not to be the “servants” of these machines as Chaplin depicted in his famous movie “modern times”.

In sum, as the inventor of machines - servicing facilities devised to convenient us, we could characterize machines as “tools of human minds”. Without unique capacity for independent thinking, subjective judgment, and emotional responses, machines seem to be inferior to their masters. However, our superiority over machines cannot ensure our status – sponging on machines may give our “servants” chances to take the places of us. So be careful and remember perhaps using machines wisely is also the embodiment of human beings’ superiority.



In the third paragraph of your essay you say that "high efficiency is not the equivalent of superiority." I'm inclined to agree with you on this point, but one of the problems with your essay is that you don't clarify what is in fact the equivalent of superiority, or, more specifically, you don't explain by what measure superiority is to be judged. Of course one can tell from the essay that for you the ability to calculate does not count, whereas artistic creativity and the experience of emotions do count. What's not clear is why you choose the latter as signs of superiority and not the former.

The stronger part of your argument is the claim that machines, regardless of their abilities, are the products of human intelligence. It does make a certain amount of sense to think that Deep Blue (which you call Dark Blue!) is above all a testament to such human intelligence. At the same time, it hardly goes without saying that humans are incapable of building a machine with superhuman powers of one kind or another. Deep Blue is an example of a machine that performs one task better than every human. But with this example you also seem to presuppose that future machines will be like machines built in the past. Of course today there are still many tasks that humans, or some humans, perform better than any machine. The problem for your argument, I think, is that the number of the latter tasks is decreasing. It follows that you need to argue that there is a limit to this trend, that there is a hard limit, for instance, to the development of machine intelligence, but you don't make that argument here. Instead, you get distracted by questions that are tangential to the declared topic of your essay, questions about the possible dangers posed by the technological development. The narrow question about whether humans will remain generally superior to machines could certainly be part of a broader question about whether machines will pose a future threat, but the latter broader question cannot be part of the narrow question. So unless you want to write an essay that is focused from the outset on the broader question, that question should have no place in your essay.

Best, EJ.
Submitted by: queenaquin

There are no comments for this essay.

Log In to post a comment.

About queenaquin