Various industrial revolutions have led to the current fourth level, referred to as industry 4.0. This newer level characterizes the comprehensive integration of physical and biological systems and processes with their digital counterparts, especially in the production processes. Lasi et al. (2014) define the concept as the integration and connection of intelligent and autonomous processes such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning, the Internet of Things (IoT), and cyber-physical systems that necessitate their communication in disregard to human intervention. This independence from human interaction has gradually raised concerns regarding their social, economic, and political impacts, especially regarding their integration into economic activities typically assigned to humans. The concerns arise from industry 4.0 concepts and inventions such as robotics, automation, anthropomorphism, machine perception, and androids. This essay focuses on the interaction between robots and their designation to perform human-designated roles, their academic views, suitability, and social impacts, and suggest possible solutions.
Current Robot Roles
Currently, human and robot interaction, especially in the workplace, has contrasting effects on workers (Pham et al., 2018). The norm only worsened with the growing versatility and specialization of robots into activities typically reserved for humans and deemed difficult for robots, especially regarding emotional disposition. The field has observed expansion into manufacturing, microchip, logistics, and aviation industries affecting jobs and efficiency. For instance, during the early car productions, the assembly points utilized a physical human workforce. However, one of the pioneers of workplace automation, Henry Ford, automated these assembly lines (Adeppa, 2015). The effect was an extensive increase in the number of cars produced daily with an inverse decrease in the human workforce needed for the process. This effect filtrates other economic grounds through various other inventions. These inventions, including robots in manufacturing and logistics industries, work to eliminate dangerous or harsh activities from humans (Kurfess, 2005). They include interaction with dangerous radioactive or harmful elements and driving. Some sophisticated versions of robots, such as humanoid and social robots, have ingrained human attributes through anthropomorphism that engage them in human interactions offering tutoring, communication, and various human activities such as playing chess.
Discussion of Robots Doing Human Work
Consequently, this interaction with humans, affecting robots to accomplish human tasks, raises various discussions. Various academicians and industrialists differ in their views regarding collaboration. These views surround the social, economic, and political implications of robotic influences in inhuman work. According to Sharma, Mishra, and Bhardwaj (2016), robotic influences and inventions inadvertently improve social dispositions regarding lifestyle, medical advancements, disaster approaches, and weaponization.
Robots may improve human lifestyle in the workplace by offering time to concentrate on more productive work, do work humans do not want to do, allow the availability of services otherwise not forwarded to specific populations, and enhance the achievement of work-life balance (Sharma, Mishra & Bhardwaj, 2016). Turkle (2005) further expresses that even in positive aspects such as enhanced machine and human interaction, dependency offers social problems such as isolation limiting viable living standards. In the medical sphere, social advancements include therapeutic interventions that enhance individuals’ diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, leading to improved quality of life. Inversely, robotics integration into the medical sphere raises social issues like increased access to healthcare, unnecessary complications, and lack of empathy required to sustain life.
Similar issues arise with their disaster and weaponization strategies, with concerns aiming towards their application of safety concerning human life. Sharma, Mishra, and Bhardwaj (2016) establish this consideration of human dignity following Asimov’s triple robotics rules, which direct the robotic-human interactions. However, advancements in concepts such as the Internet of Things, seamless data exchange, and internet speeds limit such social problems in weapons and disaster management. The advancements have enabled autonomous robots in these categories, reducing the ultimate risk to human life (Chesher, 2018). Also, according to Chesher (2018), data and speed increases enable timely and precise execution of their work, reducing human time wastage and costs. This in-depth perception by Chris Chesher stems from his extensive research and involvement in robotics in various ways, including androids’ faces and voice assistants, solidifying his argument.
From the economic aspect, introducing robotics in the workplace or production process raises divergent discussions. In a positive light, integrating robots and the subsequent workplace automation or economic activities reduce production costs, enhances productivity, and assists in developing other jobs (Pedersen et al., 2016). Ford advocated for using robotics in the assembly lines since they became practical. Pedersen et al. (2016) echo the advocacy, citing that robotics maximize resource utilization and production efficiency from their concept to industrial deployment. The robots particularly excel at mundane work that is repetitive in nature and require consistency. This consistent, repetitive nature enhances the production of high-quality work. Moreover, robots enhance safety measures since they accomplish dangerous and harmful tasks. Overall, the sped-up production process, safety assurance, and enhanced quality production ultimately led to the company saving money over time, increasing economic benefits.
However, while the businesses enjoy economic gains, various negative economic implications arise especially considering the workforce view. Also, the merits of robotic integration influence such delimitations with the workers in various ways. The increased efficiency and consistency in production, especially in mundane and repetitive activities, risk the jobs of the human workforce that do such work. For instance, a secretary may excel in signing contracts and answering phone calls. However, some robots and androids can accomplish tasks with greater efficiency and accuracy, which might risk the secretary’s work. Frank Pasquale observes these limitations and suggests policy changes to avert them; however, he acknowledges its complexity in resolution (Pasquale, 2020).
Typically, robotics and politics interplay in various ways. Employment losses, election interference, artificial intelligence, and military application offer the various modes politics and robots correlate. Although there have been scares of robot replacement in employment, humans have innovated more ways of engaging in economic activities. The main concern underlies the incorporation of AI and IoT into robots which enhance their cognitive capabilities and actively disrupt human employment; hence, the taxation of individuals leads to issues concerning the survival of “contemporary civilization” (Kiggins, 2022, p. 4). Other disadvantages of robots regarding politics include AI wars and cyber attacks. The resolution, however, stems from the utilization of the technologies which inversely provide beneficial political linkage.
Personal Views
My views also diverge regarding introducing and utilizing robots in the workplace. I agree that production processes should utilize robots for harmful and dangerous activities, such as those relating to radiation and chemicals. However, I believe they are not suitable for work that is not harmful just because they excel at repetitive work. Such works include the assembly of parts. Typically, humans are social beings. Every human interaction depends on interaction and integration with other humans, from their familial, working, religious, traditional, and cultural dispositions. In a layman’s understanding, humans need to live in families, have a purpose, accomplish tasks in teams, haggle through political coalitions, shape themselves through cultural norms, and conform to groups to survive. Sherry Turkle expounds that this aspect of humanity solidifies their emotional connection and isolates feelings of loneliness, mental exhaustion, and anxiety (Turkle, 2005). However, integrating robots seems to raise different attitudes toward their social implications, especially their engagement in designated human activities. Roles such as those repetitive in nature and require manual touches, such as teaching and medical interventions, might lead to social problems.
Concerning medical intervention and in addition to an earlier discussion, I believe automatic inclusion in healthcare raises more problems than it solves. The human workforce operates under ethical guidelines and principles, especially in the healthcare sector. These ethical directives help preserve human dignity, address issues related to critical life conditions, and coordinate the care provisions. The main issue with robots is that such provisions do not conform to them. Similarly with teaching, although integrated with cognition, robots fail to connect with the different human interactions accorded with teaching. As described in earlier discussions, the robot operates as a programmed limiting analysis of the different dispositions of learners and resolutions.
What concerns do people have about robots?
The sentiments echo even from perceptions of other individuals other than my views. The discussion offers some of the most popular opinions shared by other individuals. According to the discussion, stakeholders such as Sherry Turkle, Frank Pasquale, and Chris Chesher share divergent opinions. While acknowledging the benefits such as productivity and efficiency of robots and related technologies forwards, Turkle and Pasquale offer pessimistic tendencies, with the former arguing they cause social problems while the latter warning against their penetration.
Are there any current solutions? What solutions are there?
Typically, resolving such conflicts regarding addressing the particular problems associated with the specific robotic integration in the application. In the medical sector, current resolutions include using robots in nonsurgical tasks such as prescription. However, some robots have specialized to accomplish specific tasks. However, as discussed, the general resolve of work-related interaction should be the introduction and diversification of other economic activities humans can accomplish. Therefore, robots can perform specific human roles; however, there should be limitations that address the social, economic, and political consequences.
References
Adeppa, A. (2015). A Study on Basics of Assembly Line Balancing. International Journal on Emerging Technologies, 6(2), 294.
Chesher, C. (2018). Technology, Mindstorms, and the genesis of robots. In Androids, Cyborgs, and Robots in Contemporary Culture and Society (pp. 120-137). IGI Global.
Kiggins, R. (2022). Robots and Politics. ResearchGate | Find and share research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362113186_Robots_and_Politics
Kurfess, T. R. (Ed.). (2005). Robotics and automation handbook (Vol. 414). Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.
Pedersen, M. R., Nalpantidis, L., Andersen, R. S., Schou, C., Bøgh, S., Krüger, V., & Madsen, O. (2016). Robot skills for manufacturing: From concept to industrial deployment. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 37, 282-291.
Pham, Q. C., Madhavan, R., Righetti, L., Smart, W., & Chatila, R. (2018). The impact of robotics and automation on working conditions and employment. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25(2), 126-128.
Sharma, K., Mishra, M., & Bhardwaj, S. (2016). Social impact of artificial intelligence: Robotics. Res. About Res., 1, 19.
Turkle, S. (2005). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. MIT Press.
write