For example, some say that having robots is very important for the human development in future because people will rely on them or help them do what they want to do but a few say having them is really dangerous and harmful to society. Give the two sides of these opinions and explain which is yours.

For example, some say that having robots is very important for the human development in future because people will rely on them or help them do what they want to do but a few say having them is really dangerous and harmful to society. Give the two sides of these opinions and explain which is yours.

Robotics and artificial intelligence might just be the most important technology frontiers of the twenty-first century, evoking both extraordinary hope for human advancement and deep concern about many social, economic, and existential dangers they may create. Both perspectives are based on concepts that are legitimately nontrivial and should be taken seriously. After careful consideration of the evidence, I must conclude that robots are on balance very significantly good for human progress — provided their application is regulated intelligently and with fairness to people in a spirit of real interest in human welfare.

The folks whose view it is that robotics constitutes an indispensable component of human growth make a compelling, fact-based case. Robotic systems are already performing surgery with the possibility of operating at greater precision than human operators in certain contexts; analysing medical imaging with diagnostic accuracy so that error rates can be reduced below what even skilled humans might achieve; and caring for, or just keeping company with, older people whose needs exceed available human support. Robotics revolutionises productivity, removes human labourers from deadly working conditions in manufacturing, agriculture and logistics and comes close to providing the volume necessary to satisfy the material requirements of a burgeoning global populace. Similarly, in scientific research—be it the depths of oceans to outer space—robot systems allow humanity to explore places almost impossible for humans and generate knowledge that human-only exploration never could.

Supporters also cite robotics as an answer to some of the most severe demographic issues facing humanity. With the population in developed countries growing older, and birth rates falling, the ratio of working-age to dependent elderly citizens deteriorates at an ominously unsustainable pace for welfare systems and care infrastructure. The creation of so-called “robots” which can perform tasks that currently rely on human labour is one of the small number of feasible ways to maintain productive capacity and quality of care in the context of these demographic headwinds.

But those who have sounded alarms about how ubiquitous robotics is becoming make just as strong (and not too-quickly dismissed technophobia) arguments. The risk of humans being put out of work due to automated systems is probably the most immediate danger. In the past, technological revolutions historically have produced new classes of work to fill jobs that became obsolete—everyone cites the Industrial Revolution as an example—but there are compelling cases that the pace, scale and cognitive ability of modern automation is different enough from previous waves of innovation as to make this historical comfort feel unfounded. As robots are increasingly able to do not just physical work but even cognitively complex work like legal research, financial analysis, medical diagnosis, and creative production — the remaining economic activity that truly cannot be automated is rapidly shrinking in ways that will cause structural unemployment on a massive scale.

Apart form employment the fact that so few technologically advanced corporations and nation-states will control robotic and artificial intelligence capabilities means extreme power asymmetry, surveillance state, autonomous weapons systems (backed by rogue nations), and the prospect of these technologies being turned against normal people to serve narrow interests rather than humanity as a whole. Even the possibility that autonomous lethal weapons systems will be enabled to make life-and-death decisions without more than perfunctory human oversight is perhaps the most extreme example of such fears and it remains a level of service that has not been addressed with appropriate keenness by international regulatory activity.

Lukerned: If it is a matter of when, not if robots will be front and center in the future of humanity — that role now looks pretty much unavoidable — then what really matters are the governance structures, distributional policies and ethics to suit their use and abuse. The history teaches us that transformative technologies are neither inherently liberating nor inherently oppressive — their impact is contingented by the social, political and economic arrangements in which they are0 embededd. Robots that reduce suffering, extend human capability and liberate people from drudgery are indeed worthy investments in a future of true human flourishing. That potential can only become a reality with political will, international collaboration and a sincere commitment to prioritising human welfare over technological determinism and narrow commercial imperatives.

In summary, the threats posed by robotics and automation are real and require serious governmental responses, but, while we avoid more dystopian futures — if we make sure that this technology can only be used for good in society — I believe that their possible impact on human development is so large to be considerably greater than the risks.