just to make sure does this     ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress
In their editorial "ChatGPT: Temptations of Progress" published in The American Journal of Bioethics, Rushabh H. Doshi, Simar S. Bajaj, and Harlan M. Krumholz examine the potential impacts and pitfalls of the artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT on medicine and medical research. The authors argue that while ChatGPT offers promising capabilities, its deployment must be approached with caution and responsibility rather than blind enthusiasm.The editorial begins by highlighting ChatGPT's rapid rise to prominence, noting it gained one million users within five days of release and has been hailed as world-changing technology

The authors then present ChatGPT's own responses when asked about its potential impacts on medical research and medicine more broadly. These responses paint an overwhelmingly positive picture, emphasizing benefits like improved data analysis, task automation, and faster clinical implementation of research

However, the core of the authors' argument emerges as they critique ChatGPT's unequivocally progressive attitude. They note the chatbot focuses solely on its promise while failing to consider any potential drawbacks or risks.This observation leads into a discussion of the "temptations of technocracy" outlined by Jasanoff, which include viewing technology as inherently virtuous, pursuing innovation for its own sake rather than to meet societal needs, and absolving designers of responsibility for technological harms.

The authors then outline several specific concerns about ChatGPT's use in medicine. These include its overconfident responses to complex questions, potential to spread misinformation to patients seeking medical advice online, deteriorating accuracy on complex topics, outdated knowledge base, and demonstrated biases around race and gender.They argue these issues underscore the need for caution in deploying AI tools like ChatGPT in healthcare settings.
Rhetorical Analysis
The primary audience for this editorial appears to be medical professionals, researchers, and bioethicists. This is evident from its publication in The American Journal of Bioethics and its focus on implications for medicine and medical research. The authors assume readers have some familiarity with AI and ChatGPT's capabilities.

The purpose of the editorial is to temper enthusiasm around ChatGPT by highlighting potential risks and calling for responsible implementation. The authors aim to provoke critical thinking about AI's role in medicine rather than uncritical acceptance.

The authors employ several rhetorical strategies to make their argument:

Ethos: The authors establish credibility through their affiliations with prestigious institutions like Yale School of Medicine and Harvard University. They also demonstrate expertise by engaging directly with ChatGPT and analyzing its responses.

Logos: The editorial relies heavily on logical appeals. The authors present a clear argument structure, moving from ChatGPT's self-assessment to critiques grounded in established frameworks like Jasanoff's "temptations of technocracy." They provide specific examples of ChatGPT's limitations and biases to support their calls for caution.

Pathos: While less prominent, emotional appeals are present in the authors' emphasis on potential harms to patients. Phrases like "potentially dangerous" and references to racial and gender biases evoke concern.
The authors use contrast effectively, juxtaposing ChatGPT's optimistic self-assessment with their more cautious perspective. This structure highlights the gap between the technology's promise and its current limitations.

Quotations and paraphrasing from ChatGPT's responses and Jasanoff's work provide supporting evidence and lend authority to the authors' arguments. The use of specific examples, like ChatGPT's biased responses to questions about race and gender, make abstract concerns more concrete and compelling.

In conclusion, Doshi, Bajaj, and Krumholz craft a well-reasoned argument for a measured approach to implementing ChatGPT and similar AI tools in medicine. By combining scholarly analysis with practical examples, they effectively caution against uncritical techno-optimism while acknowledging AI's potential benefits.



Follow the rubric stuff here MAJOR ASSIGNMENT #2
Rhetorical Analysis Assignment ENGL 1021
Amy Downing
Rough Draft for Peer Review due October 9th
Due Date for Final Draft: October 13th
Directions:
Read the article in our D2L classroom Content tab (Week 6) carefully. After reading through one time, re-read the article to identify the main idea (claim) that the author is making and the relevant evidence the author uses to make this claim. You must identify a minimum of three pieces of evidence from the text.
Do not include your opinion of the author’s claim!

•	Using your annotation and close reading skills for this will come in very handy to locate the author’s thesis and main evidence.
 
 The first goal of this paper is to summarize.  Using what you have learned so far, summarize the     
  text first.

The second goal of this paper is to analyze how the author of the article uses Rhetorical strategies to make his point. In the analysis, you should identify the audience, purpose, and rhetorical methods using evidence from the article to support this.

REMEMBER
Your goal with this paper is to analyze how the article persuades. You are not looking at what the author is saying and taking a stance on that, you will finally get the opportunity to argue your point of view on our final paper in this class.


Requirements
●	3-4 pages in length,
●	typed, double spaced,
●	11 point font, New Times Roman or Arial font type.
●	The author and title of the article must be in the first paragraph. When citing relevant details, make sure to indicate that this is what the author said.
●	Submit/upload your final copy in D2L
●	MLA format



Objective:
Student will be able to clearly identify the main idea (claim) of an article and use the most relevant evidence from the text that used to make the claim. Additionally, students will be able to accurately identify Rhetorical strategies, methods, audience and purpose of the article using evidence from the article.

Purpose of the assignment:
Learning to write an effective Rhetorical Analysis allows you to begin to understand rhetorical knowledge and purposeful writing. Additionally, being able to summarize will allow you to start “listening to the conversation” without inserting your own opinion. Reading is another form of listening, so critical reading is also an important component for the course.

This assignment will allow you to practice and demonstrate this ability to “listen” closely by reading critically and identifying main idea (claim/thesis) of the article and choosing the very best relevant details the author chose to support your ideas in a clear, concise summary.

This skill of being able to summarize is the first step in being able to critically analyze written text.




Criteria
Level of Achievement
Introduction	Intro provides	Either intro	Intro provides	Intro does not
thesis, &	context for the	provides	little context for	provide context
conclusion	rest of the	insufficient	the paper; thesis	for the paper or
	paper; thesis is	context for the	is implicit and	is irrelevant to
	explicit, specific,	rest of the paper,	hard to find;	analysis; thesis
	and clear; thesis	thesis is lacking	thesis is about	is undetectable;
	is analytical in	in clarity, is too	the issue, not	conclusion
	nature;	general or	the analysis of	seems unrelated
	conclusion	specific, OR	the text;	to the rest of the
	recasts thesis	conclusion fails	conclusion	paper
	and provides	to recast thesis	makes ins	
	cohesion to	effectively		
	whole paper			
Rhetorical	Source text is	Contextualization	Incomplete	Poor
triangle and	thoroughly and	and analysis of	contextualization	contextualization
rhetorical	effectively	source text is	and analysis of	and analysis of
appeals	contextualized	good and	source text;	source text; not
	with	somewhat	parts of	supported by
	well-supported	supported but	rhetorical	examples;
	analysis of	could be	triangle or	overuse of
	structure,	improved; focus	appeals may be	summary and
	rhetorical	is mostly on	missing; little	discussion about
	triangle	analysis (not	support is	the issue (not
	(audience,	summary or	provided;	the analysis)
	author,	author’s own	overuse of	
	purpose), and	ideas of the	summary; use of	
	rhetorical	issue)	discussion about	
 
	appeals (ethos, pathos, logos); focus is on analysis (not summary or author’s own ideas of the issue);		the issue instead of analysis	
Organization	Smooth flow of	Flow of ideas	Ideas do not	Sequence of
	ideas ordered in	could be more	always flow in a	ideas and
	a logical	effectively	logical, cohesive	paragraphs
	sequence that	sequenced;	manner;	seems aimless
	effectively	most paragraphs	paragraphs	and haphazard;
	guides the	have clear and	often do not	no transitions
	reader; each	supported main	have clear and	present; no topic
	paragraph has a	point; most topic	supported main	sentences or
	well supported	sentences focus	idea; topic	topic sentences
	clearly-stated	on analysis	sentences often	focus entirely on
	main point; topic	transitions are	focus on issue	the issue, not
	sentences focus	present but	not analysis	the analysis
	on analysis;	could be		
	effective use of	improved 1		
	transitions			
Audience	Engages	Engages	May appeal to a	Neither captures
Awareness	audience	audience	limited audience;	nor sustains
	throughout	through most of	has little	interest; may be
	paper; tone and	the paper; can	engaging	overly emotional
	word choice are	capture but not	qualities; tone is	and opinionated
	appropriate for	sustain interest;	inappropriate for	to engage
	audience	tone and word	audience &	audience;
		choice are	purpose	
		mostly		
		appropriate for		
		audience		
Language use &	correct,	mostly correct	many incorrect	pervasive
mechanics	appropriate, and	and appropriate	sentences	incorrect
	varied	integration of	structures	sentence
	integration of	textual	integrating	structures
	textual	examples,	textual	integrating
	examples,	including in-text	examples,	textual
	including in-text	citations; few	including in-text	examples; no
	citations; limited	errors per page	citations; several	in-text citations;
	errors in	in spelling,	errors per	many errors
	spelling,	grammar, word	paragraph in	throughout in
 
	grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; good use of academic English	order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; very few problems with using academic English	spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; informal language used in multiple instances	spelling, grammar, word order, word usage, sentence structure, and punctuation; informal or inappropriate language
Total Possible	30	25	20	15

This assignment is worth 30 points.