【正文】 h that human ingenuity will create new jobs, industries, and ways to make a living, just as it has been doing since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. These two groups also share certain hopes and concerns about the impact of technology on employment. For instance, many are concerned that our existing social structures—and especially our educational institutions—are not adequately preparing people for the skills that will be needed in the job market of the future. Conversely, others have hope that the ing changes will be an opportunity to reassess our society?s relationship to employment itself—by returning to a focus on smallscale or artisanal modes of production, or by giving people more time to spend on leisure, selfimprovement, or time with loved ones. A number of themes ran through the responses to this question: those that are unique to either group, and those that were mentioned by members of both groups. JP Rangaswami, chief scientist for , offered a number of reasons for his belief that automation will not be a displacer of jobs in the next decade: “The effects will be different in different economies (which themselves may look different from today39。t reduce them. A car that can guide itself on a striped street has more difficulty with an unstriped street, for example, and any automated system can handle events that it is designed for, but not events (such as a child chasing a ball into a street) for which it is not designed. Y es, I expect a lot of change. I don39。d argue that jobs will shift into other sectors. Now more than ever, an army of talented coders is needed to help our technology advance. But we will still need folks to do packaging, assembly, sales, and outreach. The collar of the future is a hoodie.” John Markoff, senior writer for the Science section of the New York Times, responded, “You didn39。 they may not be strictly attributable to the uses of automation but they are related…what the middle of the 20th century shows us is how dramatic major economic changes are—like the 1970s OPECdriven increases of the price of oil—and how those changes can dwarf the effects of technology.” Argument 3: There are certain jobs that only humans have the capacity to do A number of respondents argued that many jobs require uniquely human characteristics such as empathy, creativity, judgment, or critical thinking—and that jobs of this nature will never succumb to widespread automation. David Hughes, a retired . Army Colonel who, from 1972, was a pioneer in individual to/from digital telemunications, responded, “For all the automation and AI, I think the 39。 will have to be involved on a large scale. Just as aircraft have to have pilots and copilots, I don39。selfdriving39。s ability to detect unexpected circumstances, and take action overriding automatic driving will be needed as long and individually owned 39。 are on the road.” Pamela Rutledge, PhD and director of the Media Psychology Research Center, responded, “There will be many things that machines can39。s number and even send flowers, but an app can39。ve been living a relatively slow but certain progress in these fields from the 1960s.” Christopher Wilkinson, a retired European Union official, board member for , and Inter Society leader said, “The vast majority of the population will be untouched by these technologies for the foreseeable future. AI and robotics will be a niche, with a few leading applications such as banking, retailing, and transport. The risks of error and the imputation of liability remain major constraints to the application of these technologies to the ordinary landscape.” 9 PEW RESEARCH CENTER g Argument 5: Our social, legal, and regulatory structures will minimize the impact on employment A final group suspects that economic, political, and social concerns will prevent the widespread displacement of jobs. Glenn Edens, a director of research in working, security, and distributed systems within the Computer Science Laboratory at PARC, a Xerox Company, wrote, “There are significant technical and policy issues yet to resolve, however there is a relentless march on the part of mercial interests (businesses) to increase productivity so if the technical advances are reliable and have a positive ROI then there is a risk that workers will be displaced. Ultimately we need a broad and large base of employed population, otherwise there will be no one to pay for all of this new world.” Andrew Rens, chief council at the Shuttleworth Foundation, wrote, “A fundamental insight of economics is that an entrepreneur will only supply goods or services if there is a demand, and those who demand the good can pay. Therefore any country that wants a petitive economy will ensure that most of its citizens are employed so that in turn they can pay for goods and services. If a country doesn39。s pay for a fair day39。s Berkman Center for Inter amp。m not sure that jobs will disappear altogether, though that seems possible, but the jobs that are left will be lower paying and less secure than those that exist now. The middle is moving to the bottom.” Stowe Boyd, lead researcher at GigaOM Research, said, “As just one aspect of the rise of robots and AI, widespread use of autonomous cars and trucks will be the immediate end of taxi drivers and truck drivers。application of heuristics39。s population will be outside of the world of work—either living on the dole, or benefiting from the dramatically decreased costs of goods to eke out a subsistence lifestyle. The central question of 2025 will be: What are people for in a world that does not need their labor, and where only a minority are needed to guide the 39。m reminded of the line from Henry Ford, who understood he does no good to his business if his own people c