As times goes by, I feel myself more in the ranks of those who don´t think that robots will mean the end of work. The job posts will evolve in their tasks but that does not mean the end of all of them. Therefore, when we see a list of the works in risk of extinction we should interpret a list of professions that would change in their duties in order to survive. Furhermore, I find quite difficult a generalised automation due to the lack of intellectual resources to think on it.
However, it is undeniable that some jobs could perish or diminish the demand of the services associated to them. This is nothing new. Take the case of the smiths, the importance of their work and the need for them where drastically reduce with the decrease on the demand for horses shoes as a consequence of the disminution of horses at the first industrial revolution. What it is a change now is that every profession now is at risk of automatisation if we dedicated enough amount of intellectual resources to that aim.
So are we at risk of losing our jobs or not? The answer is yes and no. My thesis is that all depends if someone want to make it disappear. In the end, the jobs at risk will not be those we need to automatise but those someone decide to automatise. For instance, as some people hate the job security of public sector employees it is expectable works towards the automatisation of their post.
The selective automatisation of jobs is not an isolated risk of the development of artificial intelligence. The bias will reach also to the different solutions adopted for the automatisation, because in the end algorithms are the fruit of human thinking. So it is correct that people in the last Davos meeting show their worries on the lack of diversity in AI workers and line of works. The risk is not automatisation but the biased automatisation.