Employees Versus Corporations: Rhetorical Strategy and Artificial Intelligence
The debate over technology replacing human employment has dominated public discourse since the invention of cost- and time-reducing technology such as the spinning wheel and the printing press. Today, the discussion gravitates towards a more developed and sophisticated form of technology: Artificial Intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence is a “wide-ranging branch of computer science concerned with building smart machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence” (Built In), and it has become indistinguishable in our everyday lives. Twitter, Amazon, Spotify, Microsoft, Google Maps, and Siri are only a few examples of apps and digital assistants that help humans with everyday activities, entertainment, and consumption. Nevertheless, our personal lives are not the only sphere AI has infiltrated.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has “changed the game” in terms of automation and productivity in corporate societies, which includes CEOs, staff, and customers. According to the World Economic Forum, factory machines would produce “58 million more jobs than they displace by 2022,” while 75 million jobs will be lost as a result of this increase. This figure might excite those looking for new high-skilled job opportunities as a result of these changes, but it may disappoint those who depend heavily on their current income and may not have the resources to search out new opportunities elsewhere. However, I believe the ongoing argument regarding whether the incorporation of AI is more beneficial or detrimental to corporate communities is one that will never end. It is never-ending because the correlation between technological advancements and the number of jobs to be completed grow simultaneously.
Stanley Fish’s Winning Arguments argues that there is no such thing as concrete truth because facts are always open to interpretation and debate, making arguments less about gaining factual accuracy and more about persuasion. Using this, I will not take sides but analyze how each side presents its arguments. Since taking sides would imply choosing between the “people” and the “powerful,” in which this debate would conclude based on who you align with more, explaining both sides stems from recognizing differing viewpoints. When all the facts are set out, it is easier to take a position on a specific topic. If only one side of a debate is presented, there would be no room for improvement or criticism, preventing a full understanding of a particular issue.
Microsoft, a multinational technological company, is an example of a large corporation prioritizing a technological breakthrough, in this case, the algorithm, over its human employees. During the height of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Microsoft announced that they would be laying off approximately 50 news production workers due to a new artificial intelligence algorithm that could better fulfill their editorial duties. Microsoft responded to criticism from angry employees, stating: “This can result in increased investment in some places and, from time to time, redeployment in others. These decisions are not the result of the current pandemic” (Bishop, 2020). According to Fish in “Political Arguments,” this exemplifies the traditional “spin,” or “the pronouncing on things from an interested angle.” Instead of shedding unwanted light on the fact that Microsoft —perhaps— used the Pandemic as a scapegoat to dismiss non-profitable workers, the company focused on the normalcy of the decision. Microsoft suggests that they were not intending to fire workers in order to save money, but rather were conducting regular business evaluations in order to find a more effective way to optimize their production. The tech company is attempting to mitigate the “harshness” of the harsh reality of valuing AI above workers by following a more “that’s life” mentality.
Bryan Joiner—a former Money editor who was laid off—replied to Microsoft’s claim that the algorithm will sink his entire MSN branch by stating that “MSN is low enough in the Microsoft hierarchy that its existence has felt like it was on the chopping block for years” (Economic Times, 2020). In other words, Microsoft has treated the MSN branch poorly, to the extent in which the employees had already accepted the inevitable doom of their discharge. Joiner peeled the skin off many years of frustration towards the billion-dollar company, as his overt word usage and snarky tone seem to reflect a conflict that goes beyond a single grievance about the new algorithm’s implementation. His anger is deep-rooted and long-established, revealing the underlying stressed effects AI has on some of the members of corporate communities. Moreover, Joiner’s response to his former employer was not only representative of the other Microsoft editors who were fired, but also the millions of workers who have lost their employment as a result of AI displacement, bolstering his point by appealing to a wider audience.
Fish’s “Political Arguments” alludes to the previous example in the debate as the stage where two parties express their claims against one another, but there is no definitive correct response. These oscillating comments, in particular, demonstrate what Fish refers to as talking points. Talking points are “designed to score points.” In an almost tennis-like fashion, the debaters go back and forth with their points of view and “facts” until the argument is eventually exhausted into irrelevance or one side gives up. However, because the topic of AI is so relevant in today’s social, political, and economic climates – with modern captains of history like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg headlining the news almost weekly-, the debate is nowhere near over. Companies like Microsoft will continue to incorporate cutting-edge technologies that accomplish the same tasks human employees complete but more efficiently and cost-effectively. By that same token, workers like Joiner will only be satisfied if they keep their jobs and are better appreciated by their employers. While both outcomes are unlikely to occur at the same time, and as machinery continues to develop, more contentious situations, such as our inability to fully comprehend algorithms, could ignite the debate.
The lack of knowledge about algorithms is another argument that is often brought up in this particular AI debate. Algorithms are an essential part of the technologies used by big businesses. Spotify, for example, uses algorithms to curate songs for a user’s recommended playlist. Instagram uses algorithms to display the posts of the users with those communicated most. These features seem innocuous at first glance, so much so that the power of algorithms is underestimated. It is often claimed that consumers’ lack of understanding of algorithms aids corporations’ ability to monitor and breach our lives. “Random” music, images, and advertisements, generated in the user’s feeds seem to be objective and coincidental. Even Fish states in his “Political Arguments” that “no such discourse (except perhaps for the language of a computer, and that is purely formal, without substantive content) is available to us as situated human beings.” Although Fish is not an AI specialist, I have found that using the statement above to display how all discourse is spun and not to make a solid claim on algorithms is valuable for my argument. Fish infers that computer language, or algorithmic codes, are “purely formal,” even going so far as to later state that “there is no algorithm or master narrative that directs us to the absolutely correct [plausible answer to a question] one.”
However, researcher Ian Lowrie would combat this idea of unbiased algorithms in his “Algorithms and Automation: An Introduction.” He underscores the importance of acknowledging the existence and influence of the programmers who create the codes for algorithms, highlighting that in every algorithm, a human trace is left behind. Moreover, he states that the algorithms that generate preference lists for companies, such as Spotify, have been carefully curated by a programmer team. Consequently, algorithms are indeed biased. Because the idea of computers, mathematical language, and alien tech codes creates the illusion of fact, and because most of the population are not avid tech geniuses, it is easy to fall under the impression that technology is altogether inhuman. Interestingly, it seems as if Fish has found himself as a perfect example of how he perceives the truth in “Political Arguments:” “You are entitled to your own facts if you can make them stick.” Which I figure he does well.
The final point of contention is how humans communicate with technology and whether or not this interaction benefits human vitality in the workplace. Human contact with technology and AI has become so ingrained and “second nature” that one might argue that the majority of people are members of what Fish refers to as a “interpretive culture” in his “Academic Arguments.” An interpretive community “is made up of those who, by virtue of training, experience, and practice, have internalized the norms of some purposive enterprise—law, education, politics, plumbing—to the point where they see with its eyes and walk in its ways without having to think about it.” We seem to have become one big interpretive community because our society has become so accustomed to witnessing technology that we seldom question why such devices are designed to do what they do. The issue with being in one in the sense of AI influencing how corporations structure their workers and technical assets is that it is difficult to determine who is speaking the truth, and more importantly, who can admit when they are wrong. However, whoever one sides with, the employee or corporation ,dictates who is “correct” to the subject, and the debate will circle on as there will always be people representing both sides of the argument.
In my research, I looked at whether the productivity of machines should be valued more than the labor of employees in order to address the issue of artificial intelligence taking over corporate communities. At the same time, I also looked into whether our lack of understanding of algorithms aids companies’ ability to “govern” our lives. Artificial intelligence, I concluded, is a rising storm that will affect current and future generations. The storm is here to stay, whether you like playing in the rain or prefer to stay indoors. Given AI’s aided productivity, companies like Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Google will inevitably transition to a more AI-friendly culture. This means more production and income to the leaders of these corporations, two developments that make AI so appealing and successful. Employees, on the other hand, risk losing their jobs to machines and algorithms. Essentially, there is no win-win situation or right or wrong. As Fish remarks, people will always hold their own opinions, which they view as fact. Therefore, the stance can vary depending on whether you are on the “wrong end of the stick.” What we should take away from this debate is an understanding of our unavoidable need for technology, as well as the fact that AI is not faceless and is subject to accountability and criticism.
