A fundamental illusion in robotics is the belief that improvements in robots will liberate humanity from “hazardous and demeaning work. █████████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ █████ ███████ █████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████
The argument concludes that instead of eliminating demeaning work, robots will only replace existing demeaning work with demeaning robot maintenance work. In support, the argument claims that engineers are only working on robot designs that require the most inexpensive, unskilled maintenance labor possible.
There are a couple of flaws we can spot with this reasoning about the net effect of robot labor. First, the argument doesn't establish that robot maintenance will actually be demeaning work. Engineers are aiming for the lowest skill requirements possible, but maybe that still means a fairly high level of engaging, rewarding labor.
Second, the argument doesn't address the relative quantities of work eliminated and created. Even if robot maintenance really will be demeaning, the amount of robot maintenance needed could be much lower than the amount of demeaning labor saved by robots.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██
ignores the consideration ████ ██ █ ███████████ ████████ ███████████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████████ ███████
The argument isn't talking about jobs being eliminated. It's concerned with the net effect of robots on the amount of demeaning labor required of humans. That might correspond to job loss, but it might not; (A) just doesn't get to the point of the argument.
assumes what it ████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████████ ████
The argument doesn't commit circular reasoning. Its premise that engineers are trying to create robots requiring unskilled maintenance is distinct from the conclusion that robots will not eliminate demeaning labor. The idea that robots create demeaning work is supported, not merely assumed.
does not specify ███████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████ █████████
The argument isn't concerned with the kind of work required to design robots, but rather with the kind of work required to maintain robots. Whether or not engineers feel robot design is demeaning, that doesn't have much relevance to the argument about robots' net effect on demeaning work.
attempts to support ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ██████
The argument doesn't appeal to people's fear of job loss. In fact, it treats the loss of demeaning work as a positive outcome.
fails to address ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████
The argument's premise at best establishes that