Cite?
Because the data I see shows the opposite:
Dads in particular -
Fathers’ time with children nearly quadrupled – 1965 dads spent a daily average of just 16 minutes with their kids, while today’s fathers spend about 59 minutes a day caring for them.
I think jobs (paid and unpaid) that neurologically require emotional connection will be one of the few jobs that are protected from robotics.
Therapists, parents, childcare, romantic partner, hospice worker, etc. I don’t know if people will ever truly accept these jobs being done by robots, but who knows what the future holds.
What I think will happen with these jobs is that we will have AI input about the emotional states. Like a therapist will have glasses and an earpiece where an AI examines the patients body language, tone of voice, etc and gives the therapist ideas of what is going on in the patients mind.
The same with childcare, maybe AI glasses will give the caregiver information that the child is feeling hurt or hungry, or about to have a meltdown, or feeling ignored, etc.
People will still want these jobs done by a human, but humans will have an AI watching the interaction and always giving the human feedback about the wants, needs, boundaries, hidden thoughts, etc of the child or the patient. Humans will still do the jobs, but AI will make emotional connection better in these positions by reading endless subtle signs that humans mostly miss about the wants, needs, boundaries, etc of the other person.
Right…but I think that only looks appealing in the movies and TV because sexy robot characters are played by real life attractive humans. IRL, at least based on any current or near future technology, even the most “realistic” female robots look like a sort of uncanny animatronic silicone sex doll.
One advantage humanoid robots have in the previously mentioned jobs inside people’s homes is that homes are not going to be retooled to fit just the robot. So giving it a humanoid form means that by default they will be able to reach and walk to whereever humans can already reach.
Sometimes that could even be a disadvantage, for instance, in electrical or plumbing work, being really tiny would help you fit into spaces humans can’t. Even though the vast majority of the work there is already human-accessible.
But as an assistant to every day household chores, as long as humans sometimes do them themselves, robots with humanoid form can take over if the human can’t or doesn’t want to do it. In order to get rid of that, not only would the robots have to be cheap and reliable enough to rarely break down and be affordable by almost everyone, like washing machines, but homes would have to be entirely redesigned around the robots, in order to save space where humans no longer need to go, and homes can last for over 100 years. If you wanted to make a dishwashing or clothes folding robot, if you gave it a humanoid form, then in the vast majority of cases it would be able to do its job out of the box.
Well right off is the fact that quite a few people are forming emotional connections to their AI agents knowing full well that the other side is not sentient. AI therapy is a thing, not ready for prime time, but that hasn’t stopped people from using it in that way, and not always to bad results.
And many of us form strong emotional bonds with our very non-human form four legged friends. Dang I knew kids who got very upset when their damn Tamogoochi got sick.
I don’t think it takes much for humans to project huge amounts onto even a basketball with a face painted on it.
Then again, there is a market for those silicone dolls, and presumably would be even more for one capable of moving and talking on its own. And it is possible, with enough development, to get past the uncanny valley. So, mostly not yet, but maybe eventually?
Of course, we do have dishwashing robots, and they look nothing at all like humans.