Will the widespread adoption of humanoid robots exacerbate social stratification, leading to the rich owning robots while the poor lose their jobs?

Hey, that's an excellent question, and it's something many people are genuinely concerned about right now. Let me share my thoughts, trying to keep it as easy to understand as possible.

This issue needs to be looked at from two sides; it's not a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

The Pessimistic Side: It Could Indeed Worsen Disparity

Imagine this scenario:

1. Cost and Barrier to Entry: Initially, humanoid robots will definitely be a luxury item, much like the first mobile phones. Only large corporations and the wealthy will be able to afford them. They'll use robots to replace human labor, for example, assembly line workers in factories, waiters in restaurants, or even office clerks doing repetitive tasks. This would drastically cut their production costs, leading to soaring profits.

2. Impact on Jobs: For ordinary people, especially those engaged in manual labor or repetitive cognitive tasks, the impact will be immense. A robot can do your job, and it doesn't get tired, doesn't complain, doesn't demand a salary, and doesn't take holidays. Which would an employer choose? The result is that many people might lose their jobs.

3. The "Skill Gap": As robots become widespread, what kind of talent will society need? People who can design robots, repair robots, and program robots. These are all high-tech positions. But the problem is, can a worker who used to tighten screws on an assembly line, or a delivery driver, immediately transition to become an AI engineer? It's very difficult. This creates a huge skill gap: those with technical skills earn increasingly high wages, while those displaced find it harder and harder to find work.

4. The Matthew Effect of Wealth: Those who own the means of production (in this era, robots) will become even wealthier, while the bargaining power of those who rely on selling their labor will become extremely low. Wealth will accelerate its concentration in the hands of a few, naturally widening the gap between rich and poor. The wealthy will enjoy all sorts of convenient services provided by robots, while the poor might not even be able to keep their jobs.

From this perspective, your concerns are entirely valid. If left unchecked, technological development could indeed tear society apart into two classes: "robot masters" and "the unemployed."

The Optimistic Side: It Could Also Be a New Opportunity

However, history tells us that every technological revolution brings pain, but ultimately also creates new opportunities.

1. Costs Will Fall: For any technological product, with mass production, costs tend to drop dramatically. Think about computers and smartphones; decades ago they were luxuries, now almost everyone has one. Humanoid robots might follow this pattern. When robots become affordable enough for ordinary families and small businesses, they will no longer be exclusive to the wealthy. A small restaurant owner could buy a robot to help with dishwashing or serving, freeing up more energy to research new dishes.

2. Creation of New Jobs: It's hard for us to imagine now what new jobs will emerge in the future. Just like farmers 100 years ago couldn't imagine what a "programmer," "UI designer," or "short video blogger" would do. The widespread adoption of robots will give rise to a massive new industry, including robot sales, maintenance, upkeep, personalized customization, software development, content creation (e.g., teaching robots to dance or paint), and even robot ethicists, robot psychologists, and so on. These are all new employment opportunities.

3. Freeing Humans from "Toil": Many jobs are inherently dehumanizing, such as working in dangerous environments, high-intensity repetitive labor, or tedious, boring tasks. Robots can free people from these jobs, allowing us more time and energy to engage in more creative work, work that requires emotional connection and deep thinking. For example, nurses could delegate repetitive tasks like injections and dispensing medication to robots, giving themselves more time to care for patients and provide psychological support.

4. Improving the Quality of Life for Society as a Whole: The widespread adoption of robots will greatly boost productivity, making the cost of goods and services extremely low. Society's material wealth will be greatly enriched. At that point, we might only need to work three days a week to live a much better life than we do now. It might even give rise to new social distribution systems, such as "Universal Basic Income" (UBI), where the government provides every citizen with an income to guarantee basic living, because society's total wealth is already sufficient.

Conclusion: The Key Lies in Our Choices

So, will humanoid robots exacerbate social stratification?

The answer is: Technology itself is neutral; it's a double-edged sword. The ultimate outcome doesn't depend on the technology, but on how human society chooses to set rules to guide it.

• If we let things run their course, we are very likely to head towards the pessimistic future.
• But if we plan ahead and prepare, for example:
  • Reform the education system: Invest heavily in lifelong learning and vocational retraining to help people adapt to new jobs.
  • Improve social security: Establish stronger unemployment insurance and healthcare systems, and even explore Universal Basic Income, to provide a "safety net" for people during the transition period.
  • Adjust tax policies: For instance, consider implementing a "robot tax" to redistribute some of the profits generated by robots back into society, supporting those who lose their jobs due to technology.

All in all, this is more a question of social governance than a purely technological one. The challenges are great, but the opportunities are equally immense.