I agree that robots are an advantage to replace dangerous tasks in humans. But I'm against the idea that robots are better at certain things than humans. 

First of all, you oppose that robots that decide with big data like AlphaGo can bring good results through better choices. Because it is not always right to produce results through big data. There are always variables in human life and there are always things that only humans can solve. The robot is not flexible and acts only on the values entered. Does this really fit humans? We have to think again.

Secondly, I took the story of a court, saying that robots are clearer than humans, and of course I agree with this. However, in the case of a trial, human reason is essential. Robots cannot know criminal psychology and criminal code more clearly than humans. Furthermore, if robots replace all jobs in the courts, the bad effects of countless people losing their jobs can occur.

In conclusion, I admit the advantages of robots but don't really think it's necessary for humans. And the bad effects are too great.