Disclosure: This column was written
with the assistance of AI.
to/Per Stephen Hawking,
the human species is at risk of mass extinction. Just last
November the renowned theoretical physicist predicted our species
could survive on this planet for only 1,000 years. But now he
thinks we have only 100 years to find a new home.
The news is
so distressing these days. Once in a while/Occasionally I’d
like to hear something good. Mass extinction? Colonize another
planet in 100 years? I mean, who cares about what happens to our
planet and the human species in 1,000 years? Let’s just keep doing
what we’ve always done. But 100 years? Now I’m really
believes that the threat to the survival of our species has to
do with /must do with a number of/several factors. “With climate
change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics, and population
growth,” he argues, “our own planet is increasingly precarious.”
As a result/Thus, we need to find another home if we are to
survive, and advancing technology will make our move possible.
Unfortunately, technology is a double-edged sword. Hawking thinks
the development of “full artificial intelligence,” for example,
“could spell the end of the human race.” Hawking believes that “once humans develop
artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign
itself at an ever-increasing rate,” and the human race
doesn’t/people don’t stand a chance. “Humans, who are limited
by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be
long as/if we’re on the subject of technology and artificial
I want to
take a contrary view. I believe we need to examine Hawking’s
warning according to/per normal assumptions of risk and
likelihood. I mean, I know he’s a genius and all, but I for one
really appreciate/appreciate all the things technology does
Microsoft Word and Microsoft Outlook, for example. My Office 365
subscription now provides a “grammar & more” option under
“proofing” options that offers me writing style suggestions. I
first noticed this wonderful new feature when squiggly blue lines
suddenly began appearing beneath certain words and phrases.
According to/Per Word’s style suggestions, for example, I
should change according to to per.
marking Word’s style suggestions in this column with slashed
constructions like this: first my word choice/then Word’s word
thank you, Word, for your able assistance. If I weren’t so worried
about Hawking’s dire warning about the downside of artificial
intelligence, I would compliment/complement you for . . .
are you suggesting? You’re telling me to change compliment
(which means to praise) to complement (which means to
complete or to go with)! If you’re so intelligent, why don’t you
know the difference between those two words?
now/Now that I look at
the changes you’ve suggested in this column, I realize that I
question a number of your suggestions. In fact, I actually
resent/resent them. I wonder if my readers’ response is
similar to/like mine.
Wake up! Are you sleeping?