Have automation and technological advance been shown to have a positive impact on society and the economy or a negative one? My friends and I, 2 of which are computer science majors think it is worse because is humans can't work and thus afford necessities, how will they survive?  The definition of automation: the use of largely automatic equipment in a system of manufacturing or other production process.
"unemployment due to the spread of automation"

It is to reduce human intervention mainly in order for tasks to more economically efficient and save on paying unions, benefits to employees, as well as human workers.  A business starts with one person let's say, an assembler.  He hires a few other people to assembly more work he's getting, and eventually has a whole factory. He is able to buy 2 robotic arms and use them to cut his human workforce in half, not needing let's say 20 guys out of 40 he had.  A few years later he buys two more robotic arms and the rest are laid off.  He now only needs a few men (3-4) for monitoring and repairs.  BUT once the CEO can buy technology to fix the robots, pretty much all left is observers, but then the CEO eventually just wakes up, hits a switch, and begins building.  He's rich, made his own job, made his living, he'll probably be fine.

HOWEVER, not everyone has the mindset or means to be an entrepreneur or innovator.  ALSO because the CEOs and owners invested and made their own business, how can they be hated in a fair way? They should have this right since the whole thing is their ownership and job, it just needed other people for a while.

ALSO, during this time, new jobs were made like the observers and robot repair people.  They were eventually automated out too.  This is being done for drivers, surgeons, pilots, military, security, construction, even cashiers are replaced by self check outs now.  They have tested a truck that drives itself, size of a delivery one for products. Drones are already delivering things. 

Therefore, I can't see (and neither can others) how advancing technology to be more self-sufficient in itself is good when people will eventually no longer be able to find work and thus afford medical care, food, housing, clothing...from that, it would for the majority (not those who are stocked on riches and resources and were innovated enough to prepare themselves) cause economic collapse. Due to lack of taxpayers now and there be less flow of the economy anyways, a communist type system would unlikely happen so nobody starves or freezes.

Thoughts...does it have a better impact as many I've heard say, or all in all realistically, have a worse one (in the long run at the very least)?
Would you rather work with a tractor or shovel?

Would you rather use one hand to work or two?...

Mathemathically the formula is:

$$EL  = \mathrm{GDP}_r$$

That is, efficiency ($/h) times hours worked per year equals the real GDP. Same is true for your personal life and personal income. Now, if efficiency decreases, you must either work more or live with less, which is not what anyone wants. Note that even as you increase your efficiency, there is little evidence that such thing decrease someone else's efficiency. So thus the result is income inequality and not "lack of necessities". That means, those with lower IQs generally earn less (since IQ is the primary driver of differences in efficiency between people)...

For the example in question, it seems that efficiency has increased, and at least temporarily the L term has decreased (even though the robot arm builders obviously still need to be employed). However, the cheaper robot arms make it easier for other sectors to accommodate people. So more likely result is a sectoral shift in the labor force, which is what historically has always happened. That is, the factory workers take pay cut, but demand for labor increases in a other sector providing a pay increase and more jobs to that sector. Historically L remains the same but E increases for the whole economy.