3 ms·

There are essentially two answers to this question, and neither are in the interests of capital so there will never be progress if power toward them until force

by elif 2y ago

There are essentially two answers to this question, and neither are in the interests of capital so there will never be progress if power toward them until forced. The first is the bill gates "income tax for robots" idea which does a kind of hand wavey thing figuring out how to calculate a robot, how the government will distribute taxes, etc. That one is a mess impossible to get support for and nearly impossible to transition to. The other idea, put forth by the Democracy in Europe 2025 party, is called a universal basic dividend, which essentially says that to make AI owned by humanity, the utility of automation should be calculated, and as a result, a dividend will be paid out (just like any other stock holder) which is a percent of that company's profit derived from automation. It becomes part of the corporate structure, rather than a government structure, so this one I think kinda has merit on paper, but likewise zero motivation to implement until it's virtually too late

error_logic 2y ago
Wealth tax, with the value declared by the owner as a requirement for the government defending the property rights. Valuations deemed too low (attempted tax evasion) can be challenged by the government by calling an owner's bluff and forcing sale to the highest bidder at the price set by the second highest bidder.
takinola 2y ago
I don't quite follow the logic of either of these proposals. If (a big if) AGI displaces human labor, then most people will not have any income from employment. If that happens, who has the income to purchase the output of the AGI? If the addressable market served by the AGI declines drastically, then where do the profits come from? If the AGI has low/no profits, where does the tax or dividend come from? The only solution I can come up with to this conundrum is if the output of the AGI is provided for free to people so the value is captured directly without the intermediating commercial steps. However, there will still be friction in this process (in the form of physical inputs) so I don't see how this is a long term sustainable approach. Good thing I don't believe in AGI so this is, at best, a philosophical debate.

by elif 2y ago

error_logic 2y ago

Wealth tax, with the value declared by the owner as a requirement for the government defending the property rights. Valuations deemed too low (attempted tax evasion) can be challenged by the government by calling an owner's bluff and forcing sale to the highest bidder at the price set by the second highest bidder.

takinola 2y ago

I don't quite follow the logic of either of these proposals. If (a big if) AGI displaces human labor, then most people will not have any income from employment. If that happens, who has the income to purchase the output of the AGI? If the addressable market served by the AGI declines drastically, then where do the profits come from? If the AGI has low/no profits, where does the tax or dividend come from? The only solution I can come up with to this conundrum is if the output of the AGI is provided for free to people so the value is captured directly without the intermediating commercial steps. However, there will still be friction in this process (in the form of physical inputs) so I don't see how this is a long term sustainable approach. Good thing I don't believe in AGI so this is, at best, a philosophical debate.