>what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners. Roombas do not deep clean carpets, cannot traverse stairs, can't clean bath

>what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners. Roombas do not deep clean carpets, cannot traverse stairs, can't clean bathrooms at all, are blocked by clothing and other heavy objects, closed doors, etc. and cannot clean anything that is not on a floor. That is not what I would qualify as "similar to a person". >So put up or shut up Why? I am not the one trying to advance an agenda of "roombas are clearly putting maids out of business". I'm the skeptic. I think it's entirely possible that all of your assumptions are wrong and probable that at least half of them are. >if you deny the ability to make inferences then where do we even go from there? I might start with questionnaires asking roomba owners about their cleaner hiring practices in order to confirm or deny one of the key assumptions underpinning your thesis. It'd be a good topic for research, but not one I have seen pursued. >Saying "groupthink" as a meaningless buzzword It is not a meaningless buzzword. The idea that robots destroy jobs is commonly accepted because it is popular. I could find 20 or so articles in a couple of minutes advancing the idea, whereas the skeptic's view - that it doesn't, is barely represented in the media. Most of what appears in the media advancing this agenda is unsourced and the little that is sourced comes from things like that junk study from Ball State U. I mean, does that not sound like groupthink to you? It does to me. >Science advances by questioning assumptions but you have to actually do the work of considering an alternative Well, if you're really interested in proving your point - why not fire off some questionnaires to roomba owners - did they have a cleaner before they bought the roomba? did they fire the cleaner after? did they cut the cleaner's hours? This seems like a more productive line of enquiry - reality is usually more accurate than shit models.