5 ms·

From the EU draft report: "whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken ove

by duality 10y ago

From the EU draft report: "whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequality in the distribution of wealth and influence;" I'm sure everyone here has thought about the implication of automation on the future of employment. But I personally hadn't considered the impact specifically on social security systems in particular. Interesting! I must admit, this all seems very murky to me. When does a collection of hardware running some software become a "robot"? If I can replace an intern with a Python script, does that script start having to pay social security too? If one were to take a principled stand on this, each business should have to estimate however many people have been "automated away" and pay that much social security. Maybe we could back-date the impact of automation to the invention of the steam engine, perhaps, since this is clearly an ongoing trend and not something that is only starting in 2017. And why does a piece of equipment need to be deemed a "robot" in order to for someone to be liable for damages it might cause? I'm no legal expert, but my understanding is that there are already plenty of laws and judicial precedents in place regarding such liabilities.

kpil 10y ago
Easy. Glowing eyes = robot. Special rule also applies for Tricia Helfer-type robots, that only occasionally and inexplicably glows, and then in a sinister way. R2-robots are exempt, as they just beeps annoyingly while getting lost. The thought that you could tax software for the performed labour is new to me, but why not. As the way it is sort-of implied in the text - requiring some sort of mechanical implementation in addition to software, it will probably slow down development of robotics in EU, which is currently the only way we can compete with slave labour^H^H^H^H low-income economies.
- visarga 10y ago
  > you could tax software for the performed labour Or you could issue new money and put it in circulation as BHI. That way the money hoarders and robot beneficiaries can't hide their money. Also tax all other values such as properties and shares, so they can't hide the value of their wealth by converting it into something else. The issue with automation owners is that they want to get money for their products while not hiring people. Thus the cycle of money is broken. Money should circulate like water in nature, not accumulate in some place from where it can't escape. The automation owners should support BHI otherwise who's going to buy their products? They are going to be hit too when demand falls. If you think from a game theory point of view, the automation owners should accept a loss in order to keep the system working, otherwise they have to take an even bigger loss. But they would prefer other people pay their taxes while they escape (so they lobby for advantages in law), a move based on greed - even though if everyone would do that it would mean they all lose. Similar to the tragedy of commons.
- ragebol 10y ago
  An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. I think that's a positive thing. The tax level should strike a balance that makes it worthwhile to automate something but the downsides (inequality) can be counteracted by the tax still. Ideally, the same applies to tax on gasoline, smoking etc.
  - duality 10y ago
    I would wage that there's no obvious distinction between an automation tax applied to "robots" and to any computers, industrial or agricultural equipment, automobiles (I'm not paying a horse breeder, or paying people to carry my litter or rickshaw around, am I?), etc. So, would you propose we impose a penalty tax on all machine capable of doing a job that people could also do?
    - ragebol 10y ago
      Perhaps. Imagine how much less we'd all have to work and still have enough money to live, if part of our livelihood was payed by robots.
  - kpil 10y ago
    Since I just read that eight men own half of the capital in the world, I tend to agree. Eight!
    - megous 10y ago
      You should read again.
      - kpil 10y ago
        OK. I did. Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world. EIGHT!
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. " It's an utterly and completely absurd idea. There is no such thing as a 'robot automaton' for the most part anyhow. Do you know Starbucks started using machines to make Capuccinos instead of having the baristas do the full work. Does that count as a robot? Does the new accounting software that requires less human input count as a robot? Do the police traffic cameras count as robots? What about airlines that used to have 4 crew in the cockpit but now only 2 due to advances in navigation? Or the specialized 'domain search' tools for professions that save 1/2 their search time and therefore law/medical firms require less staffers? Or the automated ticketing booths at the Airport? Or the upgraded baggage handling machine that works twice as fast and requires less humans moving luggage? Or the advanced comms/radar that means greater safety and 1/2 the air traffic control staff? Can you imagine the legal hangaring over what constitutes 'automation'? And the lawsuits? And the cost? This is part of the reason that the EU is in many ways a complete disaster. How utterly stupid. There's an article today about France trying to recruit startups. The moment you hire a few people, and use online services to do your taxes, instead of doing them yourself - do you have to 'assess' your workplace as having an 'automation' upgrade and then pay more taxes? It's fantastically Orwellian.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ragebol 10y ago
Some sort of automation tax perhaps? Before machines, horses did the work and I think farmers also needed to pay a tax for their horses (citation needed). Such a tax should strike such a balance that it's still worth to automate work but also earn enough tax an social security to help the displaced workers.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Interesting. Maybe we'll see an API we'll have to use to submit amount of "work units" our software does for tax purposes, under the penalty of fines or jail time if we fail to comply?
  - akavel 10y ago
    Hm, based on what's reported by our new CPUs with embedded non-resettable "work units" counters for tax purposes? Like gas/water/electricity counters at homes? One side result could be that people would start (over?-)seriously valuing computing efficiency (again?)...
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I don't know about software, but for mechanical machines we already have this. It's the gas tax.
- throw_away 10y ago
  http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/farm-horse-tax-rolls-1797-1798 http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical...
thwarted 10y ago
When does a collection of hardware running some software become a "robot"? If I can replace an intern with a Python script, does that script start having to pay social security too? Alternatively, if the description of a job can be expressed as a python script, and still be as robust in practice, what does that say about the job itself? Or about the people who are/were doing that job? How much of the threat of automation is based on realizing that the job one is doing, not just the output, could be commoditized?
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  I am not too worried about the "threat of automation", since there are literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people working in the public sector in my small country alone that could be automated away using twenty year old technology. But the public sector doesn't care primarily about ROI; they care about keeping their budgets growing every year. Since the public sector also strongly dislikes increased unemployment, nothing happens.
radarsat1 10y ago
> If I can replace an intern with a Python script, does that script start having to pay social security too? Literally, why would it? It's not (a) part of society nor (b) have needs that might be fulfilled by social security services.
- duality 10y ago
  I can't tell if you're in agreement or disagreement with the point I was making. Are we to infer that a robot will, by definition, be a part of society, whereas a Python script obviously isn't? That's the implication of this social security tax on "robots" specifically that the EU draft report is proposing.
  - radarsat1 10y ago
    Social security is something that we pay into because we get something out of it. What does a robot stand to get from social security?
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> Maybe we could back-date the impact of automation to the invention of the steam engine, perhaps, since this is clearly an ongoing trend and not something that is only starting in 2017. I believe that the steam engine mainly replaced horses, not people.
dlss 10y ago
Seemingly not considered in the report is the incentives created for offshoring -- if you tax robots in the EU, that will just cause the companies to move the administrative robots to nearby countries with reduced robotic rights. Only those robots requiring decision speeds under 100ms or so would need to be kept in country, forming a sort of race to the regulatory bottom.
- duality 10y ago
  Also not mentioned are potentially unforeseen implications of deeming a thing to be a person. We've seen in the United States that considering corporations to be persons in some contexts [0] has had significant ramifications. What might follow from deeming "robots" (whatever they are, exactly) to be electronic persons? If robots can have liability for damages they cause, does this in turn exempt their owner from liability? Can an electronic person even have an owner? Can the hundred million nanorobot I just stamped out all make political contributions to some preferred candidate (naturally the one most in favor or robot liberation)? Can they vote? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

by duality 10y ago

kpil 10y ago

Easy. Glowing eyes = robot. Special rule also applies for Tricia Helfer-type robots, that only occasionally and inexplicably glows, and then in a sinister way. R2-robots are exempt, as they just beeps annoyingly while getting lost. The thought that you could tax software for the performed labour is new to me, but why not. As the way it is sort-of implied in the text - requiring some sort of mechanical implementation in addition to software, it will probably slow down development of robotics in EU, which is currently the only way we can compete with slave labour^H^H^H^H low-income economies.

visarga 10y ago
> you could tax software for the performed labour Or you could issue new money and put it in circulation as BHI. That way the money hoarders and robot beneficiaries can't hide their money. Also tax all other values such as properties and shares, so they can't hide the value of their wealth by converting it into something else. The issue with automation owners is that they want to get money for their products while not hiring people. Thus the cycle of money is broken. Money should circulate like water in nature, not accumulate in some place from where it can't escape. The automation owners should support BHI otherwise who's going to buy their products? They are going to be hit too when demand falls. If you think from a game theory point of view, the automation owners should accept a loss in order to keep the system working, otherwise they have to take an even bigger loss. But they would prefer other people pay their taxes while they escape (so they lobby for advantages in law), a move based on greed - even though if everyone would do that it would mean they all lose. Similar to the tragedy of commons.
ragebol 10y ago
An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. I think that's a positive thing. The tax level should strike a balance that makes it worthwhile to automate something but the downsides (inequality) can be counteracted by the tax still. Ideally, the same applies to tax on gasoline, smoking etc.
- duality 10y ago
  I would wage that there's no obvious distinction between an automation tax applied to "robots" and to any computers, industrial or agricultural equipment, automobiles (I'm not paying a horse breeder, or paying people to carry my litter or rickshaw around, am I?), etc. So, would you propose we impose a penalty tax on all machine capable of doing a job that people could also do?
  - ragebol 10y ago
    Perhaps. Imagine how much less we'd all have to work and still have enough money to live, if part of our livelihood was payed by robots.
- kpil 10y ago
  Since I just read that eight men own half of the capital in the world, I tend to agree. Eight!
  - megous 10y ago
    You should read again.
    - kpil 10y ago
      OK. I did. Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world. EIGHT!
- edblarney 10y ago
  "An automation tax will reduce the inequality between owners of capital, who can buy robots, and those who cannot. " It's an utterly and completely absurd idea. There is no such thing as a 'robot automaton' for the most part anyhow. Do you know Starbucks started using machines to make Capuccinos instead of having the baristas do the full work. Does that count as a robot? Does the new accounting software that requires less human input count as a robot? Do the police traffic cameras count as robots? What about airlines that used to have 4 crew in the cockpit but now only 2 due to advances in navigation? Or the specialized 'domain search' tools for professions that save 1/2 their search time and therefore law/medical firms require less staffers? Or the automated ticketing booths at the Airport? Or the upgraded baggage handling machine that works twice as fast and requires less humans moving luggage? Or the advanced comms/radar that means greater safety and 1/2 the air traffic control staff? Can you imagine the legal hangaring over what constitutes 'automation'? And the lawsuits? And the cost? This is part of the reason that the EU is in many ways a complete disaster. How utterly stupid. There's an article today about France trying to recruit startups. The moment you hire a few people, and use online services to do your taxes, instead of doing them yourself - do you have to 'assess' your workplace as having an 'automation' upgrade and then pay more taxes? It's fantastically Orwellian.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ragebol 10y ago

Some sort of automation tax perhaps? Before machines, horses did the work and I think farmers also needed to pay a tax for their horses (citation needed). Such a tax should strike such a balance that it's still worth to automate work but also earn enough tax an social security to help the displaced workers.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Interesting. Maybe we'll see an API we'll have to use to submit amount of "work units" our software does for tax purposes, under the penalty of fines or jail time if we fail to comply?
- akavel 10y ago
  Hm, based on what's reported by our new CPUs with embedded non-resettable "work units" counters for tax purposes? Like gas/water/electricity counters at homes? One side result could be that people would start (over?-)seriously valuing computing efficiency (again?)...
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I don't know about software, but for mechanical machines we already have this. It's the gas tax.
throw_away 10y ago
http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical-tax-rolls/farm-horse-tax-rolls-1797-1798 http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/digital-volumes/historical...

thwarted 10y ago

When does a collection of hardware running some software become a "robot"? If I can replace an intern with a Python script, does that script start having to pay social security too? Alternatively, if the description of a job can be expressed as a python script, and still be as robust in practice, what does that say about the job itself? Or about the people who are/were doing that job? How much of the threat of automation is based on realizing that the job one is doing, not just the output, could be commoditized?

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
I am not too worried about the "threat of automation", since there are literally tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people working in the public sector in my small country alone that could be automated away using twenty year old technology. But the public sector doesn't care primarily about ROI; they care about keeping their budgets growing every year. Since the public sector also strongly dislikes increased unemployment, nothing happens.

radarsat1 10y ago

> If I can replace an intern with a Python script, does that script start having to pay social security too? Literally, why would it? It's not (a) part of society nor (b) have needs that might be fulfilled by social security services.

duality 10y ago
I can't tell if you're in agreement or disagreement with the point I was making. Are we to infer that a robot will, by definition, be a part of society, whereas a Python script obviously isn't? That's the implication of this social security tax on "robots" specifically that the EU draft report is proposing.
- radarsat1 10y ago
  Social security is something that we pay into because we get something out of it. What does a robot stand to get from social security?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> Maybe we could back-date the impact of automation to the invention of the steam engine, perhaps, since this is clearly an ongoing trend and not something that is only starting in 2017. I believe that the steam engine mainly replaced horses, not people.

dlss 10y ago

Seemingly not considered in the report is the incentives created for offshoring -- if you tax robots in the EU, that will just cause the companies to move the administrative robots to nearby countries with reduced robotic rights. Only those robots requiring decision speeds under 100ms or so would need to be kept in country, forming a sort of race to the regulatory bottom.

duality 10y ago
Also not mentioned are potentially unforeseen implications of deeming a thing to be a person. We've seen in the United States that considering corporations to be persons in some contexts [0] has had significant ramifications. What might follow from deeming "robots" (whatever they are, exactly) to be electronic persons? If robots can have liability for damages they cause, does this in turn exempt their owner from liability? Can an electronic person even have an owner? Can the hundred million nanorobot I just stamped out all make political contributions to some preferred candidate (naturally the one most in favor or robot liberation)? Can they vote? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood