Computers will take over all human roles

I will reply to this your latest argument in a similar fashion as the first. Football: I bring up the question: Why wouldn't people be interested in watching robots face off?" You bring up the point that we have favorite players in favorite teams. Why could this not be favorite teams of favorite robots? You also bring up the point that robots wouldn't inspire people to play football, but that is the essence of my argument. It is not because they are not inspired that they can' be as good as robots, but because they can't be as good as robots that they won't be inspired. I agree that ability in football has no difference on how much people enjoy it. However; robots don't need to be infinitely good. If they can match the players in how they would play. Then the cost of the robots will quickly be worth much more. Acting: You wrote "If a fault is observed..." However; I argue that there will never be a fault, because it is impossible for a computer to make a mistake. The computer will do exactly what you want it to. However, lets assume that there is a fault (somehow) then it would be unfair to have a bias against the computers! They provide the exact same quality of the human actors but a single mistake is counted against them more than the humans (I say again, a computer making a mistake is still impossible) Political Issues: I agree that a leader would not want to give away his/her authority in the situation. But, they won't have a choice. As the computers become smarter they can make decisions better than humans can. Any human that tried to stay in control would be slowly down the march of civilization. I bring an example from a fictional movie but one that could easily be realistic. In the movie, Terminator, a virus has infected huge portions of the nation and no human programmer can identify the source of the virus. This is a plausible situation, The only option in this type of event is to let go of the control to smarter and faster devices. Art: You bring up a very interesting point. I believe you are arguing that because the person is a well-known artist, people think that his/her painting are better. This is again an example of a bias against computer. However; I think that your point supports my claim. The paints are no better or even worse than that of a computer however; it costs more because a human can only make so much art in his life, not because he is a human making art. A computer doesn't need to sell painting for that much because it can make thousands each minute. Why would someone want to be a worse, more expensive artwork? The answer is simple, they wouldn't and the artist will lose their job... New Jobs: I think that I should have clarified this in the beginning with definitions but... Job - A paid position of regular employment Employment - The condition of having paid work. The "job" that humans would have in the future doesn't match this definition. I also think that you are personalizing this too much. The people don't own robots to send off the work. The employers own the robots to work. For instance, a self-checkout automation wasn't "donated" by a person that owned a robot. But the market decided not to employ several cashiers. This is a very modern example but i'm sure in the future more complex examples of the this will occur.