The element of advanced technology and robotics has been at the center of debate over the years. The basis of significant discussions has been its influence and whether it is destined to doom humanity. In the article "Can we avoid a digital apocalypse?" by Sam Harris, the author believes that the continued production and advancement of computers will, someday, require the creation of robotics that surpass human intelligence. He also argues that these robots will destroy humanity, providing a relevant example with the replacement of human labor with computerized robotics that can perform tasks more quickly and precisely. On the other hand, the article "Thinking does not imply submission" by Steven Pinker focuses on the human ability to use reason. Steven questions further how the reasoning process was achieved. Note that the entire human nature of thinking and having some belief alone and cannot be transferred to any machine. At this point he demonstrates that no day will a computer, no matter how advanced it may be, surpass human intelligence and, if it does, it will in no way threaten human life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay I find Steven Pinker to be more convincing in this; draws a clear line between humans and machines. While there is a risk that computers may surpass human performance to some extent, they can only function within the framework of limited programming. It provides an example of an AL system, which in no way involves the duplication of a human being. A machine is limited to a particular function, and although it can surpass human reasoning and capabilities, its characteristics cannot extend beyond the programmed line of the task. A good example is a car driving a car that cannot attract a soul mate. The author recognizes the unemployment risks associated with the introduction of robotics. When it comes to calculations and calculations, it recognizes the fact that there are machines and technologies that make accurate estimates. But where the hell do roboticists design robots without protections? It provides an excellent example of existing machines and safeguards against harm to humans. Previously, technology experts predicted that technology would overtake humans over time, but apparently none of this happened due to safeguards. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom EssayAccording to Steven, robotics cannot reason. There is no risk of a robot harming humanity because a human can cause and act. Speculation on the possibility that an artificial intelligence system will surpass man who builds is a theoretically dreamed but practically impossible hypothesis. According to Steven, its creator could foresee such a scenario soon enough and curb it accordingly. He questions the reasoning ability of robots. Steven explains how technology could never outsmart its creator without being controlled. It also highlights man's natural unconscious power to reason. If existing technology has not surpassed or harmed man, why and how would its progress pose a threat to the very human being who builds it?!