To operationalize this concept, the author cites several instances where computers were dependent on basic inherent human skills, preventing them form operating in complete independence from their creators. The author measures the computer’s ability to react to an atypical, non-routine scenario and determines that a human’s ability to adapt and handle these situations is far superior. Using the example of a computer’s inability to decipher graphic images, the author convincingly points out that while the computer’s can handle immensely complex tasks, it still relies on neural recognitions from a human eye to cross certain thresholds. He also uses a speech recognition system with from a human eye to cross certain thresholds. He also uses a speech recognition system with a high success rate as a measure of a computers ability to decipher speech accurately and replace human phone operators. With these facts, Thompson dismisses the notion that the computer is here to all of the drudgework for us while we go out and use the machines as tools for our creative ingenuity. Instead, Thompson suggests that based on these stated examples, humans may find themselves a meager accessory to the more important computative skills that a computer has. In closing, he suggests that computers will never get rid of us based on our disambiguation skills but our roles may ultimately be different in the future.

From a validity standpoint, the author succeeds in arguing for a concept that has a familiar ring to it. The idea that machines are replacing humans is not a new one and has been demonstrated since the industrial revolution. The idea of computers becoming smarter than us and taking over the world is also a generally familiar one to anyone who has had an experience with a computer. Several movies and countless science-fiction novels depict these same scenarios and while they seem like nothing more than fiction, Thompson’s insertion of actual data makes it have an uncomfortable ring of truth. The author used some valid points and cited actual circumstances that reinforced the validity author used some valid points and cited actual circumstances that reinforced the validity of the concept. With these examples I would say the author’s measure adequately reflects the real meaning of the concept under consideration.

From a reliability angle, the measurements used in the examples gave a consistent outcome based on the author’s study. The use of the images as a human verification method spoiled the efforts of the spam-bots ability to create false accounts since it required human intervention. In other studies, the voice recognition software was accurate in understanding speech 95% of the time, and would upon failure, route unintelligible speakers to a human operator, proving that humans we’re indeed necessary for the customer service process. These instances happened repeatedly necessary for the customer service process. These instances happened repeatedly within the circumstances and yielded the same result each time, proving the author’s data as reliable and reinforcing his concept.

The language that the author uses is clear and easily identifiable in one reading. The article is short and covers a fairly broad topic, and most likely could have been argued for more convincingly had it been longer. For someone who is technically inclined the article may make perfect sense, with all of the anecdotes and examples lining up as if it were an inside joke. However someone without a computer background may not take to the concept so easily without more specifics. But the article certainly does succeed in getting across the main idea and does broaden the reader’s horizons.