I replied to OP, but reposting here as a general comment.

I don’t think this article is particularly well reasoned. He takes three very different scenarios and tries to weave them into one thesis, when in fact only one of those scenarios is relevant to his point and the data doesn’t support it.

His theory is that people prefer robots over humans because they might be “opinionated.” To support this he cites his anecdote about empty human cash registers and line ups to use the self-checkout, and a woman says she likes self-checkout so she won’t be judged by the cashier. Yet the author cites a source that only 1/3 people prefer self-checkout to a cashier, so this point doesn’t support his thesis.

He cites preference of speed cameras over cops and even acknowledges the real danger people have interacting with police… reducing this to fear of interacting with an “opinionated” person is disingenuous and frankly a little offensive. Does not support the thesis.

He cites preference for autonomous AI military pilots who are not afraid to “die.” Obviously this is a massive military advancement, both strategically and simply preserving human life. Nothing to do with the thesis of “opinionated” people.

Self-driving cars versus cabbies/Uber eliminates real risk of sexual assault. Not relevant to the thesis. There might be something there for people who simply like having the freedom to choose the music/podcast, but we have no data for that.

As for the comment about mental disorders and creativity… yes I am bipolar and yes we are tremendously creative, thank you thank you. Unfortunately we die prematurely in vast numbers on account of our disorder if it’s untreated. However, our disorder makes us quite attractive in the early days and thus we tend to procreate before our disorder really takes over and ruins lives and bipolar stays in the gene pool.

What are you implying when you say eliminate mental illness/mental disorder? This is a really interesting discussion that’s pretty unrelated to the article you posted but I would need more defining. To be clear, no one has a f**king clue what causes bipolar most of the time. It is guesswork to treat the symptoms, which are what define the presence of the disorder or not. The underlying causes are unknown, so it’s not a matter of hitting a gene switch.

Are we talking eugenics? Evil robot overloads massacring us? Or just treated and more healthy? Given that we procreate, how is it going to be eliminated?

Second last point, a person can remain mentally disordered and be not mentally ill. My disorder is very well managed and I am no more “ill” than maybe someone with a temper. I am currently not as prolific/productive in art or academics now as I was when I was ill and untreated, however I would be dead by now if I wasn’t treated so every year it continues to pay off for society. My quality of life is also better (obviously, I’m alive).

Finally, if a cure to mental disorder was an option, it’s not up to society to decide whether or not it’s “worth it” to take or not, pitting their productivity against their life. It’s a decision for the disordered people to make. I know most would take it. Would it be a bummer for the world to not have “the Nutcracker” and other works? Sure. But Tchaikovsky was also utterly miserable 10/12 months of the year and if there was a cure for his disorder then who are we to deny it? And we don’t know that he couldn’t write it while healthy.