Today, there are many tasks at home or work that have been done by robots. Is this a positive or negative development?

In discussion of the prevalence of cutting-edge technology, many are divided as whether domestic robots should be implemented to do all tasks at home and in the workplaces or not. In this essay, I will examine the merits of both tendencies before proposing my own opinion. On one side of the debate, many hold that robots are radial innovation due in large part to higher productivity and greater living quality they offer. Based on a majority of studies, the argument points out that artificial intelligence has the ability to increase productivity by over 40% and boost profitability by an average of 30%. Thanks to multifunctional robots, cumbersome jobs can be solved quickly without any fatigue or complaint. Furthermore, it is believed that robots play a seminal role in doing several tasks that may pose challenges for life if performed by human. This is starkly seen in the cases of laser eye surgery which lasts only 10 minutes and all done by the latest robotics systems with almost absolute success rate. In contrast to this stance, opponents of using robotic appliances endorse the idea that with the increasingly using of digitalization, the unempolyment rate is likely to soar. The reason for this is work forces are to be increasingly replaced by machines, wage income is likely to shrink while the income from capital grows. According to CNBC news, retailer JD. com which is the world's first warehouse operated entirely by only 5 robots replaced nearly 400 to 500 manual workers. These negative remifications clearly demonstrate that overreliance on artificial intelligence can exact a toll on the labor force and gradually lead to a fear of retrenchment. In brief, on balance, I champion the view that although the risks caused by the increasing predominant service robots are indisputable, this is still a drastic change need to be openly invested to expand a domestic robot ecology.