Tech companies should teach AI to workers, not just replace them.

Daily Debate #589: "Tech companies should teach AI to workers, not just replace them.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

I do not think so; in this day and age and at this level of technology, the era of human physical labor is over, and the era of machine power has begun. In short, machines will replace humans in factories and other settings that require manual labor.

You're arguing the machines already won, but you're looking at factory floors, not economics. Yes, robots weld steel cheaper. But who designs them? Who maintains them? Who retrains when the robot breaks? Germany automated hard and still employs millions in manufacturing because they taught workers to work alongside machines. Your scenario assumes humans vanish. Reality is uglier: cheap labor countries get the robots, rich countries get the jobs. Which side are you on?

Look, this biased view of yours overlooks the necessities of the modern era... this is not a matter of choice, but a necessity! If a government advancing in machinery, artificial intelligence, and technology begins hiring robots instead of people, working hours will be drastically reduced. We humans are biological beings with needs like food, water, and other essentials, whereas robots require only energy; robots can complete tasks that would take us a week or a month in a very short time...

You're confusing efficiency with inevitability. Yes, robots are faster. But "necessity" doesn't mean "good"—it means profitable for owners, catastrophic for workers. You've just described mass unemployment dressed up as progress. A robot that does a month's work in a day doesn't feed the displaced worker or their family. Germany, Japan—they didn't choose training over replacement because they're soft. They chose it because societies that throw millions into poverty collapse. Your "necessity" is a choice masquerading as fate. Who actually benefits from your vision?

What about workplace risks? Millions of people worldwide die due to dangerous jobs... but this problem would be significantly reduced if robots took our place. Furthermore, there are solutions to your concern about how workers and their families would be fed: once robots are employed instead of human workers, production rates will rise dramatically—surpassing consumption rates—meaning people could be fed through this massive surplus of production without even needing to work.

Now you're revealing the trap. You're asking us to trust that surplus magically feeds the poor. History says otherwise—it feeds shareholders. When productivity exploded in the 1950s, did workers get fed without working? No. They got wages. The moment you remove labor from the equation, you remove bargaining power. Robots don't negotiate. Owners hoard surplus. You've painted utopia but described feudalism with better machines. Who distributes this miraculous surplus, and why would they give it to people they don't need anymore?