In recent years, fears of technological unemployment have (re-)emerged strongly in public discourse. In response, policymakers and researchers have tried to gain a more nuanced understanding of the future of work in an age of automation. In these debates, it has become common practice to signal expertise on automation by referencing a plethora of studies, rather than limiting oneself to the careful discussion of a small number of selected papers whose epistemic limitations one might actually be able to grasp comprehensively. This paper addresses this shortcoming. I will first give a very general introduction to the state of the art of research on potentials for automation, using the German case as an example. I will then provide an in-depth analysis of two studies of the field that exemplify two competing approaches to the question of automatability: studies that limit themselves to discussing technological potentials for automation on the one hand, and macroeconomic scenario methods that claim to provide more concrete assessments of the connection between job losses (or job creation) and technological innovation in the future on the other. Finally, I will provide insight into the epistemic limitations and the specific vices and virtues of these two approaches from the perspective of critical social theory, thereby contributing to a more enlightened and reflexive debate on the future of automation.

中文翻译：

---

自动化的愿景：两种方法的比较讨论

近年来，对技术失业的担忧（重新）出现在公共话语中。作为回应，政策制定者和研究人员试图更细致地了解自动化时代的未来工作。在这些辩论中，通过参考大量研究来表明自动化专业知识已经成为一种普遍的做法，而不是将自己局限于对少数精选论文的仔细讨论，这些论文的认知局限性实际上可以被人们全面掌握。本文解决了这个缺点。我将首先以德国案例为例，对自动化潜力的研究现状进行一个非常笼统的介绍。然后，我将对该领域的两项研究进行深入分析，这些研究举例说明了解决自动化问题的两种相互竞争的方法：一方面仅限于讨论自动化技术潜力的研究，以及声称提供更多信息的宏观经济情景方法。另一方面，对失业（或创造就业）与未来技术创新之间的联系进行具体评估。最后，我将从批判社会理论的角度深入了解这两种方法的认知局限性以及具体的弊端和优点，从而有助于对自动化的未来进行更开明和反思性的辩论。另一方面，宏观经济情景方法声称可以对失业（或创造就业）与未来技术创新之间的联系提供更具体的评估。最后，我将从批判社会理论的角度深入了解这两种方法的认知局限性以及具体的弊端和优点，从而有助于对自动化的未来进行更开明和反思性的辩论。另一方面，宏观经济情景方法声称可以对失业（或创造就业）与未来技术创新之间的联系提供更具体的评估。最后，我将从批判社会理论的角度深入了解这两种方法的认知局限性以及具体的弊端和优点，从而有助于对自动化的未来进行更开明和反思性的辩论。