Nowadays we are used to the idea that robots can be a valid support for people in their work, but many people lack awareness in the potential of robots taking over “white-collar jobs”. In fact, robots can now write articles in magazines, manage a hotel, and even reach the same decision that a judge would take in a court. Furthermore, they can diagnose the same diseases that a doctor would. So it is time to ask ourselves: is this morally acceptable?
In favour of robotics in white-collar jobs
Robots performances would be more accurate, more accessible and, most importantly, cost effective for companies, institutions, and governments. As an example to support this statement, we can consider the medical profession: having robots to diagnose a disease would be beneficial both for patients and hospitals. In fact, through artificial intelligence it is possible to identify a disease avoiding human mistakes, considering a wider range of options in less time compared to human doctors. Also, automation would be a profitable investment for public institutions such as hospitals and healthcare centres, since budgets spent on labors will decrease.
Yet, the lack of humanity is a matter that cannot be ignored, as people would not totally trust robots for delicate matters dealing with health or with legal actions: would anyone accept to go to jail because of the calculations made by a computer? In response to this question, the authors recall the unquestionable fact that computers are unable to make mistakes, though it is not possible to say the same about humans. Once society acknowledges the effectiveness and advantages that robots posses in these sectors, they will adapt to the concept of relying on artificial intelligence.
It can be argued that automation would not only make lots of skilled professionals lose their jobs, but also destroy future work opportunities. In first place, we have to say it is impossible to bring concrete evidences to support this thesis, since we are unable, at this point of automation progress, to say how many work opportunities would be created. In addition, this kind of argumentation is very similar to what people said during the advent of Industrial Revolution, when workers lost their jobs because of machines ability to perform manual labor, whilst now we are talking about computers able to implement cognitive labor. Yet, how many people nowadays would state that Industrial Revolution has not been beneficial for humanity?
Last but not least, we have to consider the benefits that needy people would get from the automation of white-collar jobs. For example, there are many areas of the world that suffer from lack of doctors, because governments are unable to pay for their services; of course, bringing there robots to supply this need would not be easy, but still it would be easier for a charity institution to pay once for a machine that can supply this need rather than look for human professionals willing to work for free. The same reasoning can be applied to indigent people who cannot afford legal support.
After discussing the aspects mentioned above, one can say that automation would be beneficial for individuals, societies, and economies. Automation is supported by the moral principal that technological progress must be prosecuted for science’s sake.
Against Robotics in White-Collar Jobs
Professionals in fields of high specialization will be forced to unemployment with no justice towards their case. With respect to clients who are faced with a court trial, the emotional understanding and reassurance sensation offered by lawyers with a “free of charge” service will not be available since robots are far away from gaining accreditation to support emotional feelings, regardless of their “exquisite talent” of getting the job complete. It can be argued that emotion intelligence is developing, however, these emotions will need to be programed by a robot manufacturer, which in return questions how robot companies will have the authority to tailor society’s emotions based on their ethics and values. In addition, the skills of our youth generation are prone to be unvalued by society in terms of their inability to contribute to a workforce that is slowly being taken over by robots. Governments are also exposed to challenges in evaluating a sustainable economy without taxpayers from high earning jobs and dealing with increased unemployment, unless they are able to regulate a percentile of robots permissible in each industry sector.
Worldwide economy depending on artificial intelligence devices may create significant economic inequality and a difficult transition because of disruption of labor markets. Companies and governments will need to make it easy for workers to acquire new skills and switch jobs as needed. Hence, more diversified job opportunities need to be implemented in order to be prepared for a possible socio-economic transformation.
Technological developments and changes such as computer software, humanoids, robots, are killing a lot more jobs than they are creating, which affects the distribution of work. Although technology creates new jobs, there is no guarantee that they would match the number of jobs lost. Technology has become very good indeed, but making it essential key on a daily basis will make humans lazy. Besides, there is always something new to learn for people, a new skill, new role, that need to be improved every day. For instance, lawyers involve research in their cases among with several other tasks on a given day, where it seems odd that a single robot could be able to perform all those tasks. Beyond the tasks, robots cannot express values and ethical codes that certainly human layers can; as well as the emotional support and comfortability. Additionally, there is a risk of being outperformed in intellect and skills by the smart robotic system.
Group 32: Cinzia Minafò, Shuang Shu, Youssef Mourad, Jorge Llamas Orozco
PREMag 
A very delicate subject, but the idea of automation nowadays have some limitations, it is made to take out the jobs that could, by any mean, harm or degrade the human condition. So it is alarming to say that robots will take some of the jobs that actually the human perform, even when, if you think about it there would be some advantages as precision, things would be faster, more balance. By changing this factors the society would change taking out the human factor that is always present in our daily life. In other words I support that robots works in factories but in the I don’t support robots working in humanitarian jobs as lawyers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting article, also with lot of food for thought.
I personally support machine work, because, in some jobs, machines are more precise than humans (thinks about microsurgery), while in other jobs, as you told, there could be some issue that we also have with humans (corruption, bad mood, etc…).
If we want to make an example, actually, a new judge is just a man that has studied but that have no experience so He can make mistakes on the issuance of a verdict and only when He got some experience He will be able to make the “right” verdict.
Same situation for a robot that is able to learn, with the advantage that a robot can learn much more rather than humans and can make precise calculation based on history.
In other hand, talking about robots that “stole” job from people is a bit pointless, because if every job will be take by a robot, humans will not be able to earn money, and no money means no economy… So, how company can make profit if nobody will buy their products? Think about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an interesting topic. I didn’t know that robots can do such intelligent works for white-collars. However, it really takes time to develop this technology and I think it’s the trend to let robot work with people. But challenges do exist, e.g. people will be forced to learn how to make robots work until they can do their job independently and it is time consuming. like the topic
LikeLike
I totally support automation in any work field! To those who argue that in this way people would lose their jobs, I would just reply that it’s a natural consequence of progress and society would find a new balance in long-terms, as it has always happened. What if any job would be done by a machine in the future? Personally, I believe this would be great! We work to live, we don’t live to work, so if there wouldn’t be any need of working anymore, why shall we complain about it? Again, I am sure this would lead to new social structures, but this is just the price for progress. We should support any innovation that could make life easier for everyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be honest, I think that all of this article is a very long speech with very few key points. We all know that there would be some obstacles in implementing automation in some work fields, but it’s totally pointless to ask ourselves what pros and cons this would imply, because it’s common sense that technology progress is always beneficial to people. If it will be possible, it will happen, that’s it.
LikeLike
Couple of point that may be interesting to analyze:
-The idea of computers not being able to make mistakes is outdated, most process in the real world are complex and and algorithms than aim to solve real life problems have intern to deal with stochastistity and unpredictability of the future, so they indeed make mistakes, however an interesting milestone is achieved once they reach a level when they make fewer mistakes than their human counterparts.
-Industrial Revolution was indeed a big change in what works were available for people mostly because many of the heavy repetitive works were then transfer to machines and lead to humans to more sofisticated jobs, were the human intelligence was heavily involved, this time however is essentially different, AI is not taking over a sector of the works but it aims itself to surpass human intelligence in all fields, being then superior not only at labour but also at creative works, arts, engineering, management and all other cultural and intellectual human disciplines, rendering any kind of human work inferior.
-Mistify things like emotions and feelings is a common misconception, but there is nothing magical about them, after all they are all performed on a hardware based system as the brain is, therefore given enough time and development they can be master and by an artificial system with no difference to any other human cognitive process.
-The process of developing AI is technically unstoppable because it requires little resources and basically just the willingness of individuals to understand the nature of intelligence, the deployment can be regulated by states or or authorities but eventually humanity will have to face the control and sociological problems presented by this technology, and it will be one of the most important challenges in history, if not the most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article is very interesting because offers a lot of ideas to reflect. I think that automation and innovation are concepts very important because represent the base of future. Automation means progress and progress means improvement, in particular improvement of the life style for the people.
LikeLike
That is an interesting topic. As far as I’m concerned, Robots can be both an opportunity and a risk. An opportunity because they facilitate our efforts, so they are good instrument to perform well without expending so much energies. On the other hand, humans in some field could become lazier and they don’t want anymore to do some activities, that now are performing. I don’t think that they could steal our job, because they don’t have our sense of judgement, extremely necessary to live in the world. Human would be very stupid, if he created something that could totally substitute him.
LikeLike
Even automation is a delicate subject, I support the idea that robots can help in the field but the automation nowadays have some limitations. There are a lot of critics about if a robot will take the place of a human in the job, but when a robot has been design it has to going from one stage to another, one of the principal idea is that a designer when is creating a robot has to think about helping people not to harm them. Although, people can do the same job that a machine, the precision of a machine is arguably better.
On the other hand, the automation has a long way to do not present any problem, nowadays all the automation in the machines has to be improvement for a better result, so it needs support for innovation that could make a machine works efficiently and to help people work in a good environment .
LikeLike
This is very informative!
I didn’t know that the robot technology was so developed already–I don’t think it gets enough midia attention.
Definitely, it would take some time for the people to get used to, and trust in this fast-growing technology; however, we already do trust and depend on resources that would be unimaginable 10, 25, or 50 years ago.
From my point of view: times change, technology develops, and people adapt.
Lastly, as mentioned in the 3rd paraghaph, almost everyone agrees today that the Industrial Revolution was very positive to humankind. This can be the thoughts of our great-great-grandchildren 100+ years from now regarding artifical intelligence.
LikeLike
In the light of a heavy criticism of immigration policy and the opinion (not mine) that immigration is stealing jobs from national citizens, this is a very interesting article. Everything from self service checkout to more complicated white collar jobs discussed no doubt doesn’t help the employment statistics currently.
I saw a video today which showed how ‘robots’ are being used to sort packages in the delivery process.
There probably needs to be more media exposure in this area, and it would be nice to see those who may lose jobs being utilised elsewhere rather than becoming unemployed.
Good article
LikeLike
This article is very well written and touches each key point in detail. I did not know technology was so advanced on each subject mentioned. I think medical technology would greatly benefit the less fortunate countries.
Great article!
LikeLike
Well some jobs require creativity and originality which no machine can provide. Even if the job or rold has a defined procedure, the most optimum way will have to be 1st thought of by a human brain; only then can it actually be programmed into a robot.
Ex. A lawyer aruing a case in the court can easily make efficient use of wit and loopholes in the system at the same time embedding an emotion into the speech leading to a more accepable argument in the court than that of a robot. This is an apt example used in the article.
Although robots are currently being used to ease out human life, it will be inappropriate to depend on a machine for critical do and die type decisions. If a robot gets destroyed, its rebuilt but not the same for humans.
LikeLike
I think this article is very interesting and it is about something that is happening in the world nowadays. There are many reasons why using robots is very useful in our lives, but as the article mentions it has to be a balance on the activities that a robot could do and the activities that humans must still be doing. Although a robot could do a lot of things, we do not have to forget that things and activities made by people are very important. It is not well for the society that robots are replacing people in some works, they supposed to be created to help humans with things that are very difficult for us, but not to replace us in all the aspects.
Great article!!
LikeLike
Very interesting his point of view, we are in a world that advances with unimaginable steps in the technology and we have to adapt to these changes. Update or die
LikeLike
Very interesting and well written article!
Gives a great insight on the evolution of artificial intelligence. It would be great to know about how this would affect the micro-economy in various aspects such as movement of resources if eventually human labour will be outdated. As well as the risk factor on whether artificial intelligence can be controlled or not in the long run.
Overall very impressive! Thoroughly enjoyed it!
LikeLike
Excellent article! What I liked from it is that you analyzed everything and not just threw the advantages of robots replacing the humans.
Inevitably, there are jobs that will be significantly impacted by this new automation era but I think that creativity or emotional intelligence are “skills” that a human can take advantage of and allow people to augment robots, rather than be replaced by them. In order to accomplish this, everybody must be prepared for this huge change that is coming instead of resisting in vain. Right now, a lot of countries are investing on initiatives to attract top students to research more about it or companies are spending more money on employee training, getting ready for the future. The rise of AI intelligence will make our life easier, there’s no reason to be afraid of it.
LikeLike
Great article and solid discussion in the comments! I’ll begin by noting that I am very much in favour of artificial intelligences in white collar jobs, and so I vehemently disagree with Omang Kuhrana and would point to Israelmontoyaperez in response; the assumption that there is anything that a human brain can do that cannot be accomplished by a machine is predicated on outdated and reductive modality. Saying that “the lack of humanity is something that cannot be ignored” is, irrationally, claiming that there is something inherent to humanity that cannot be replicated. It is not difficult to imagine that, just as we have created intelligences that are much better at integral calculus than their human counterparts, so too will we create intelligences more compassionate, more empathetic, and more just than any human could ever hope to be. Thus, the question becomes not whether AI will come for white collar jobs (it will—and has), nor whether it should (it definitely should), but what we as a society should do in response. We must develop a framework for a world in which AIs programmed to program other AIs are the ones writing the code for our doctors and lawyers and psychotherapists. This brings us to what is necessarily the logical conclusion of AI: the singularity—that is an AI which is intelligent enough to create an AI even more intelligent that itself. Alan Turing is often credited with noting that this is the last piece of technology that human beings need ever invent—because this cycle of iteration and reiteration will be able to repeat itself until an absolute physical limit is reached. This necessarily invites a restructuring of contemporary economies. Trying to transpose conventional economic wisdom into an economy where capital can account for 100% of inputs is like trying to imagine how one might operate the rigging on a sailboat powered by jet engines: as asinine as it is futile. I feel inclined to echo the sentiments of writer and psychologist Scott Santens and offer that “jobs are for machines, and life is for people”. I don’t know what the economy of the future will look like, but I’m willing to bet that most, if not all, of the labour will be done by the machines while most, if not all, of the living will be done by the humans.
LikeLike
The industrial revolution has made a lot of improvements in the way people work, it took away all the repetitive tasks for people to do harder tasks that involves more thinking.
I think the development in this area is very important, and has been improving a lot since the last years, is a good investment always to use robots technologies.
This is a big change for people, and most of it are not happy with changes, but everyone is going to realize the advantages that this brings and everyone will accept it!
This is an excellent article, very accurate
LikeLike
My opinion is that advanced technology like this is not actually substituting human work but redirecting it. Even if everything is happening automatically by machines, there are still many people needed to develop, maintain and inspect this technology.
For example, there will always be a need to have doctors. What is changing, though, is the nature of the job of the doctor, since, surgeons for example, need to be trained to use some special machinery while performing their operations.
In addition, the nature of some jobs is such that it is impossible to model it and create and algorithm to perform it automatically. The human brain may have slow computational power, compared to computers, but it is able to make the “right” decisions, after analyzing the data. This is because of the complexity of the human brain, which cannot be modeled, at least until now. So, there will always be a need for human professionals in jobs related to human sciences.
To sum up, my belief is that we should always aim to the direction of substituting standardized and “boring” work and focus on more creative and initiative one. Nevertheless, each occasion is special and should analyzed separately by specialists to conclude on whether it is viable from both technical and humanitarian aspect.
LikeLike
It is common for people to feel threatened by the idea of a machine taking over their jobs however not everyone knows what automation is about and the extents of it. The aim of automation is to make certain jobs easier and less dangerous. Basically is to complement the worker not replace it completely.
Yes, it’s true that many companies employ robots or certain level of automation in production processes but in many cases this is done as a measure of protection for the worker, specially for those who work in high risk environments.
Despite all the advantages that automation can provide it is important to understand that automation is not suitable for everything out there. There will be occasions in which human judgement plays a significant role therefore replace manpower with a robot might be counterproductive and bring more harm than good.
After considering the points discussed in the article and my personal belief, I am convinced that certain tasks should be automated or seek that path. However, deep analysis should be made in order to consider if an automaton can replace an actual human being for a specific job or task.
LikeLike
Robotization is always a controversial topic when it comes to moral issues. Yet, technological trends constitute a reality embedded in most of the economic sectors worldwide, so it has to be addressed urgently. Perhaps one interesting point that the article missed is the fact robotization will be employed soon as a critical element of the political rhetoric. So what sort of attitudes would the people take to this phenomenon? Will the government regulate the implementation of robots in a particular sector of the economy or will they be banned in order to keep boosting employment figures? Nobody knows exactly what is going to happen next, yet this article drives the reader to these questions. I really like it, an interesting topic.
LikeLike
From my point of view, robot technology is not removing any human job but making it simpler. improving the way humans work as an aid to achieve accuracy and reliability on high precision tasks. Sometimes it looks like automated systems will take control over human capability, but the human factors of feelings, emotions and free will are probably very hard (maybe impossible) to program as a logic sequence of commands.
The need of the human to create, develop and supervise the developed technology will be always needed, also the execution of the tasks need the human spark, so there will always be the need of doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc. developing this kind of technology also brings new human jobs that need to give maintenance to it, so the only thing that probably changes is the role of the human task chain.
I consider that some tasks should be executed by humans and some can be executed by robots, both have their pros and cons. at the end, humans are creating theses technologies, not the robots, so we have the capability to decide when and where can be used.
LikeLike
Great article, very interesting. I think the issue is timely project to date, considering that automation is now one of the areas in which science has made more investments and has further developed.
The conditions to be discussed are actually two: one scientific and the other ethical. One can not consider the fact that the robots have greatly reduced the cost of production, speeded up the production chain and improved the quality. since the revolution conceived by Ford, robotization has definitely improved the way we work, but we must be careful how far you push with this revolution.
Human labor must be respected and can not be completely replaced, because the mode and speed of response that can have an employee with years of experience can never own a car.
You must then develop these technologies without thinking of replacing them completely to the human factor.
LikeLike
Very interesting article and full of reflections
I think that technological progress is discriminatory from the point of view of skills: it has increased the demand for skilled workers to occupy jobs that involve cognitive functions and abstract tasks, eliminating mid-skilled routine occupations.
The influence of robots on employment prospects and salaries of workers will continue to depend heavily on the level of education for the foreseeable future. The high level of education decreases the possibility of being replaced by a machine.
I think that robots should not be seen as “working eliminators” but as “working improvers.” In fact, robots support can only benefit our lifestyle that can only be improved. In a utopian future, perhaps, you will not even need to work, living with a “citizenship income” – minimum wage to survive- and who wants to earn more, has to work but with highly qualified jobs.
LikeLike
Very interesting article and full of reflections
I think that technological progress is discriminatory from the point of view of skills: it has increased the demand for skilled workers to occupy jobs that involve cognitive functions and abstract tasks, eliminating mid-skilled routine occupations.
The influence of robots on employment prospects and salaries of workers will continue to depend heavily on the level of education for the foreseeable future. The high level of education decreases the possibility of being replaced by a machine.
I think that robots should not be seen as “working eliminators” but as “working improvers.” In fact, robots support can only benefit our lifestyle that can only be improved. In a utopian future, perhaps, you will not even need to work, living with a “citizenship income” – minimum wage to survive- and who wants to earn more, has to work but with highly qualified jobs.
LikeLike
Nowadays this is one of the most critical topics of the world and people can’t underestimate it, rather people should consider every possible benefits and drawbacks related to this natural development of the society.
Yes, what I sincerely think is that! I see automation as a natural process that will enhance work performances, not achievable thanks to human skills uniquely. I sincerely agree with the introduction of automation because even if workers won’t attend some activities, other kind of tasks will require human intervention, for instance the maintenance of the robots will be more complex than the traditional machine maintenance.
Nonetheless, I believe that talking about hospital and other kind of environments in which we can find different persons, in terms of age and involvement in automation, the presence of humans will be needed in order to lead also the elderly and the most sceptical persons to trust in something that is completely new.
It will be a disruptive innovation and there will surely be some negative effects in the first period because the challenges will be intensive, but people has to overcome these in order to create the most well performed workplaces ever.
Last but not least, we don’t only have to look to advanced manufacturing, but also to sustainability that not only will safeguard the environmental impact, but also will improve the customer perception on this topic.
LikeLike
The controversial issues on robotization/morality comes up frequently, but the possibility of introducing robotization even in arts or fields t’ha require creative intelligence is just as crucial in my opinion. Besides that, I strongly support the use of artificial intelligence and automatization because I consider outdated thinking that there are things robots cannot learn. I’ve seen many comments on the moral issue, as if morality was a fixed and commonly shared ideal, but I’d also point out that even for us humans this abstract morality is not clearly defined. Teaching to a robot how to be objectively moral (according to whom?) would be possible I’d argue. We mig even teach them how to methodically deal with cultural differences as diplomatically as possible, being them not subjected to emotional impulses or cultural backgrounds.
LikeLike
Very interesting article! I think that for every thing a human can do, a machine will eventually be proven capable of the same task and then outperform its human counterparts. Eventually this will lead to a point where humans are not capable of outperforming a machine in any tasks. At that point the current ideas of economics fall apart as there is no longer a reason to higher humans and the proletariat become unemployable. Without a major change in government, economics, and philosophy such a society would collapse on itself.
LikeLike
Automation, driven by technological progress, has been increasing inexorably for the past several decades. Nowadays, the use of AI represents a core instrument for companies, institutions and governments. Robots can be both an opportunity and a risk, there is evidence of this. Oh the one hand, companies must keep up with new technology and evaluate how it may be relevant to their business, whether this is about cost savings or staying ahead of competitors. It is important to not be the last to adopt new, efficient technology. Actually, the increased use of robots has improved productivity and their performances might be more precise than human’s one, at the same time allowing a noteworthy reduction in labor cost. On the other hand, while automation is eliminating many jobs in the economy that were once done by people, there is no sign that the introduction of technologies in recent years is creating an equal number of well-paying jobs to compensate for those losses. But, could we “hire” robots for doing jobs that require creativity, analytical skills or a minimum degree of judgement? I totally disagree with anyone that argue the possibility for medical professions, mentioned as example in the article, to be outsourced to robots. The human interaction is an important factor that cannot be given up that easily. My warning is just to pay attention in chasing technological improvement and to do not let artificial intelligence overpower human intelligence!
LikeLike
a very interest and cutting- edge article
actually, I don’t agree with the point, the idea of automation nowadays still has a lot of limitations, robots has a long process to instead of human’s work. I think author pointed out several imagination of robots in the real work situation, like hospital, making a diagonsis isn’t a simple process that match up with the right illness. some feeling of the patient can not direct transfer to robot but human can understand. this is only one point
human still need to defend that technology instead of or treat human, its can not completely replace, the best solution I think should be work together.
My worrying is pay attention in chasing technological improvement and to do not let artificial intelligence overpower or overlap human intelligence, although its impossible in a short time.
LikeLike
The topic of technological progress is, of course, a very current issue and after reading this article I have to admit to myself that one day artificial devices, robots, automatons and machines will completely dominate our daily lives and gain unthinkable functions. However, if I could stop this, I would do it.
Technology is undoubtedly improving our existence but, in certain fields, the impact it has on us is getting out of our control. Regarding medical, health and legal professions, I agree as well that robots are capable of getting their job done quickly and correctly, but, as the article says, they will never be able to feel and communicate real human feelings. Naturally, sometimes human emotions, like impulsiveness, anger and ambition, damage the working environment. But what about empathy? Furthermore, it is almost impossible in a profession like the judge to reach a mechanical and immediate conclusion due to precedents or particular circumstances, as proves the history of the Common Law.
Another thing I want to point out is that someone, possibly a human being, will eventually have to upgrade the knowledge and the skills of an automaton, since science continuously advances. That demonstrates that man is always way ahead of a robot.
In conclusion, robots would obviously accelerate and facilitate every kind of job but human beings have always managed to survive autonomously and I think that if men were deprived of their works and duties, they would be strongly affected by it.
LikeLike
Es una información muy interesante
Nos da a entender todos los logros que se han dado en la tecnología, aunque ya con esos cambios nos estamos acostumbrando a que los robots hagan las cosas por nosotros cuando podemos hacerlas sin ningún problema.
Está bien, los cambios son necesarios y son frecuentes pero debemos acostumbrarnos a que no sólo por eso dejemos a hacer las cosas nosotros mismos, que por estos cambios varias personas no tienen empleo, ya que con la ayuda de mis robots no se necesitan tantos trabajadores y algunos terminan sin empleo
LikeLike
Congratulations to all the members of the group because I have been very interested in reading this article.
Automation is one of the most interesting topics of recent years. Research and technological developments will increasingly extend the presence of automation both in the workplace and in our homes.
As a fan of science fiction, I like to think a future (imaginary belief) where each of us has a robot like a friendly friend that simplifies our life. For the presence of automation in the workplace, one might think that some of the work of humans would be lost, or that automation and robots could be complemented by the present professional figures; human beings could become only the “controllers” of the robots.
In my thesis I analyzed the issue of additive manufacturing that is used by 3D printing; in this context it also talk of a first use of 3D printers at one of the most classic industries such as buildings, with the construction of the first prototypes (see the MX3D bridge, the 3D Print Canal House and 3D printed apartments built in China ).
Therefore there could be a migration of jobs from classical work (in the article the example is doctors) to increasingly demands of robotics technicians. But this alternative reality also seems difficult to achieve, because man has always something more than robot, that is intelligence and ability to decide. So I think we are facing a trade-off between the utility of robots and the economic investment required. Truth is always in the middle.
I think the robots should assist human beings to simplify work but they should not replace it altogether.
LikeLike
The article raises interest in the reader and indirectly leads him to reflect on the subject. I think that the development in the field of robotics does not have to replace human labor but overstate it to facilitate it. I found interesting the comparison, reported in the article, with what happened during the industrial revolution.
LikeLike
First of all, I don’t quite agree with the author that robots can replace humans for medical treatment for patients
I will elaborate my point of view from two aspects:
First, from a technical perspective, the disease in the world today in a variety of species, and the disease virus evolution speed is very fast, I do not think the update speed of the robot can be internal software and virus evolution speed comparable to, even if the update rate is similar, the robot’s software update also consumes a lot of time and money. So it is better to put the money into drug development, so as to better benefit of mankind, after all, human is the main body of the society.
The second point is a final important, I think from a humanitarian perspective, the robot in my opinion, even if its software system more intelligent, more high-end, it can only be done infinitely close to human beings, human beings from other species, is the human thinking activity, emotion robot in other words, given by human robot, and then deal with the problem always just according to the procedures set to, perhaps in it this is the lowest risk, but often have the potential and human psychological expectation difference, also the machine people can never feel the pain of the patients, so not to mention to the heart to care patient Because it does not have the heart, will always give the patient a cold feeling, so that patients can not feel warm
Said so much, I am not in denial of medical robot, on the contrary, I am very happy to see the development of science and technology, medical robot can assist doctors to treat patients, but this does not mean that the robot can replace the doctor, at least there are a lot of things is not only surgery can be resolved.
LikeLike