But machines shouldn't replace what humans can do, Ma said, but instead the technology community needs to look at making machines do what humans cannot. This would make the machine a "human partner" rather than an opponent.
So we shouldn't replace a human with a robot that is more reliable and productive, and likely cheaper in the long run? Hogwash.
The corporatist culture is backed up by the law. The corporate officers' only legal responsibilities are their fudiciary duty to the shareholders.
Look at what you'll save. You trade wages, annual leave, health insurance, and taxes in exchange for a modest electrical bill and a maintenance contract. Toss out those meatbags and get yourself some literal cogs---as soon as possible.
Developing a partner seems time-consuming, expensive, and risky in comparison. If someone else can build one, great, but we are not waiting for it.
The only way this idea could possibly be better is, wait for it... You buy a partner robot to enhance the productivity of the regular robot that already replaced a human worker.
Now your unnecessary hoard of wealth will accrue even faster, and the dispossed underclass will be even less relevant in any social or political context. The US Constitution may prohibit titles, but these days money is better anyway.