states that as of right now the computers are being controlled by human hand, but leaves a hint of uncertainty, leaving the reader in suspense. Kurzweil finishes his article by expressing his belief that computers will always be controlled by humans, and will always work for mankinds betterment. Herein lies the problem with his article; he produces two conflicting arguments without taking a firm stance with either view. If the computer becomes as aware and smart as Kurzweil predicts than it will realize that humans damage the environment in which they live, why would it help us? He dwells on the inherent dangers of advanced computer intelligence, but then reverses his notions by reassuring the reader that humans will be able to keep a firm grip on the reigns of this technology. I am optimistic that we will ameliorate these dangers while we overcome age-old problems of human distress(Kurzweil. Pars 15). Kurzweils optimistic view of the humans prospering greatly from the machines is a happy ending, but it is not a completely reassuring one based on some of his conjectures. If the computers are smart enough to assimilate all of human knowledge, then how is man to predict the capability of holding them on leashes as they grow to gain artificial intelligence and awareness. Technology has always been a double-edged sword, and we dont have to look further than today to see both profound promise and peril.(Kurzweil, pars 15). If Kurzweil had used this statement for his conclusion instead of his optimistic final view, his article would have produced a more convincing argument....