Please rate and any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!



The author draws a causal relationship from two statements. First, machines are tools of human minds. Second, Human minds are always superior to machines. While the first argument is clearly sound, whether I agree with the second argument and the casual connection depends on how we define superiority and partly on how willing one is to humble herself to the unknown future scenarios

The statement is obviously accurate insofar as machines are tools of human minds. After all, machines had never existed before human beings invented them, and the motivation for inventing machines is always that they can serve certain purposes. For example, humans invent cars so that they can help us travel faster, and humans invent washing machines to liberate housing wives spending time on laundry chores. Even machines designed to entertain us, such as toy robots, are also tools since their inventors produce them for the purpose of commerce and the business of amusement. Overall, it is hard-pressed to think of any machine that cannot be defined as a tool.

As for the second statement, although human beings are designers of machines, machines are better than human beings in certain aspects. For example, humans have devised machines that perform calculations with much greater accuracy and speed than any human mind: today’s supercomputers can conduct over 10 million calculations per second. In fact, almost all tools are superior to human beings in a certain area, and this is exactly why humans invent them: they are extensions of human capacities. However, if one defines superiority not in terms of competence in performing rote tasks but in other ways such as independent or creative thinking, then most of us would agree that human minds are superior to machines, for any ability of machines is preset by humans.

Up until today, the notion of human-made machines that develops the ability to think on their own has only existed in science fiction, and even in fiction, humans always prevail over such machines ultimately. However, it seems presumptuous to conclude with confidence that humans will always maintain their superior status over machines. Recent advances in AI suggest that machines may have the capacity to produce creative writings, such as poems, essays, and even music. In the next decades or so, machines may exhibit the traits that we humans attribute our own superiority.

In conclusion, because humans design and produce machines, it is fair to characterize them as tools of human beings. Moreover, although it is true that the machines’ performance on many rote tasks exceeds that of human beings, humans are unique in independent and creative thinking. Thus, it is hard to bluntly characterize either the machines or humans as superior to one another. Finally, should we ever devise machines that can truly think for themselves, then query whether these machines of the future would be “machines” anymore?