I disagree with Smith because I think he overlooks displaced workers and how they may not find a career in the same realm or even as good as a job.

Smith's belief about robots not being as big an issue rests on the faulty assumption that we are uneducated and cannot see the changes already being made in daily life by AI. Furthermore, research shows that AI is already taking over jobs.

Here, Smith contradicts himself. On the one hand, he states that they aren't eliminating jobs but they are creating new ones. While on the other hand he says that innovations have gotten rid of certain jobs.

Smith's research on robots is important, as it sheds insight on why we may be getting misinformation and fear-mongering.

I agree that robots may not be as big of a deal as people seem to make them out to be, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that robots will take over.

If Smith is right that robots aren't taking over, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that they are.

I disagree with Jason Smith, because I think he overlooks how some robots can fix other robots.

Jason Smiths belief about robots in the workforce rest on the faulty assumption that they cant evolve to be more efficient than humans. Furthermore, research shows that two robots at Facebook learned to talk to each other is a secret language, so self improvement is possible among robots.

Here, Jason Smith contradicts himself. On the one hand Smith states that robots will not take human jobs. While on the other hand he says that in a New York Times article it describes robots that unload trucks.

Smiths research on robots in the workforce is important because it shows insight on why these issues can have two different sides, yet both are still agreeable.

Smith's research on the fear of robots taking jobs is important, as it sheds insight on why people have this fear.

I agree that it might not be as big of a problem as people think, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that their jobs are at risk.

If Smith is right that this isn't an area of concern, then we need to reassess the popular assumption that robots are going to take all human jobs.

Although I agree with Smith that robots are not such a big deal, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that automation won't take a lot of human jobs. 

Smith is right that robots won't take every job but seems more dubious when he claims that invasion has taken human jobs in the past.

My feelings on the issue are mixed. I support Smith's position that this issue has been talked about for a long time and robots can never fully take over human jobs, but many feel as if AI and robots have taken human jobs, and much research has been done to prove so.

Smiths research on robots and AI taking over jobs is important to show how people could potentially lose their job, as it sheds insight on ways in which robots can replace people, but also create new Job opportunities.

I agree that robotic innovations can increase productivity, since so many people think that robots will have a negative impact on the work force.

If Smith is right that robots are becoming more popular. Then we need to reassess the popular assumption that robots are a new trend.

Although I agree with Smith to a point about robots not taking jobs, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that the government shouldn't take action.

Jason Smith is right that this isn't an area of concern, but he seems on more dubious ground when he claims that nobody is being affected.

My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support Smith's position that people shouldn't stress too much over this issue, but I find James Lacey's argument about French weavers trying to destroy textile machines and Jeff Borland's research on new technologies causing the death of work.

Although I agree with Smith to a point about robots changing the workplace, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that it is unnecessary for the government to regulate robots.

Smith is right that technology helps innovate workplaces, but he seems on more dubois ground when he claims that in history they would take human jobs.

My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support jason's position that robots are taking human jobs, but I find James argument about people find other jobs in automotive places or gas stations, and many more sources he uses that speaks about both good and bad on robots in the workplace has been equally persuasive.