Raw LLM Responses

> While I agree with all of your other sentiments, we should absolutely embrace technology to automate tasks and improve the quality of life for everyone. It's not obvious that automation, as it's recently been practiced, is actually good for most people's standard of living. Some prominent economists who've researched this issue argue workers have not benefited from the impressed productivity of automation over the last 30 years or so. In theory automation-induced productivity could make everyone richer, but it doesn't look like that's the case right now. I'm not going to cheer-on automation if it only serves to make the rich richer. Moreover, on an individual level, the productivity gains from automating jobs are cold-comfort; as are the (reasonable) claims from some proponents of automation that it can free people from boring, repetitive tasks. Sure, being a cashier, for example, may be boring, but it's better than being on welfare or unemployed. People generally do boring jobs because, at least at the moment, they have no other choice. Taking their job away doesn't free them from anything except a paycheck. Now, if automation was accompanied by a greatly enhanced welfare state, subsidized training/education, and/or a universal basic income, it would be a different story. However, at least for now, that's not the case. Finally, even if automation we're done in a way that enhanced everyone's economic status, I think there are many jobs that should never be automated, regardless of whether or not it would be technologically feasible and/or would improve economic productivity. I'm thinking of jobs that involve exercising considerable power over other people, have significant political or cultural influence, entail working with vulnerable people, and, perhaps most importantly, jobs that people actually like doing. Of course, specific tasks within those jobs could be automated, but I don't think it's worth it to automate them entirely. There's more to wor