Raxit85 wrote:
A fundamental illusion in robotics is the belief that improvements in robots will liberate humanity from "hazardous and demeaning work." Engineers are designing only those types of robots that can be properly maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible. Therefore, robots will not eliminate demeaning work―only substitute one type of demeaning work for another.
The argument in a nutshell:
Robots eliminate the requirement for human labor.
BUT
Human labor is needed to maintain these robots.
THUS
Human labor won't be eliminatedRaxit85 wrote:
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it
What is the flaw in the argument? What is the weakness of this argument?
Raxit85 wrote:
A. ignores the consideration that in a competitive business environment some jobs might be eliminated if robots are not used in the manufacturing process
This is talking about Robots NOT being used in certain processes. Our scope is Robots being used.
Eliminate.
Raxit85 wrote:
B. assumes what it sets out to prove, that robots create demeaning work
It is not assuming this - this is stated i..e people who maintain these robots will do demeaning work
But it is kind of confusing in the first read - so we can keep for now.
Raxit85 wrote:
C. does not specify whether or not the engineers who design robots consider their work demeaning
How Robots are created is not in the scope - we just need to focus on the jobs they replace.
Eliminate.
Raxit85 wrote:
D. attempts to support its conclusion by an appeal to the emotion of fear, which is often experienced by people faced with the prospect of losing their jobs to robots
The scope if about "demeaning" work - and not about people losing their job (also it is about actual unemployment - not fear of unemployment)
Eliminate.
Raxit85 wrote:
E. fails to address the possibility that the amount of demeaning work eliminated by robots might be significantly greater than the amount they create
So let us say Robots replace human scavengers (this is true:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/robot-that-can-end-indias-manual-scavenging/bandicoot-robot-replacing-manual-scavenging/slideshow/71935997.cms!)
Now, Robots could remove a 1000 demeaning jobs currently done by humans but need 1 human to say maintain the Robot by oiling it and cleaning it up (say).
Therefore, it gives a great reason why the argument is wrong.
Now I quickly go back to B and see that E is far superior. I am just making this as a note that when you are confused you might want to hold on and get back
Hope this helps,