I have an issue with this. But the important issue is not with the idea of taxing AI. My issue is that taxing AI is too narrow. I have a problem with un-checke

I have an issue with this. But the important issue is not with the idea of taxing AI. My issue is that taxing AI is too narrow. I have a problem with un-checked capitalism. I'd like to see that addressed. I don't think it's very useful to determine how to tax AI right now. But for sake of the discussion let's say that there is a fine way to tax AI (and it might be taxing tokens). Given that we have a fine way to tax AI. And a company that is using AI pays their fair share of AI tax. And the collected tax is fairly distributed to humans to benefit humanity. This is all great. But why do the companies that don't use AI get to escape a similar tax? These companies are exploiting labour arbitrage too. It's just human labour being exploited, not AI. And the AI labour arbitrage is being taxed. I think the human labour arbitrage should be similarly taxed. I have a hunch that this unfair exploitation of human labour arbitrage is the source of much income inequality today. Before AI, and now, we have this problem: Many companies making profits do not fairly share profits with employees. The owner class gets an unfair proportion of the profits. (At least, I think we have this problem in many industries and companies). Now with AI, we anticipate having this problem: Many companies making profits do not have any employees (or very few). And the owner class gets an unfair proportion of the profits. I think these are the same problem. And should be addressed by similar tax and/or government regulations. And these taxes and regulations, because they need to be applied broadly, may be best based on financial metrics not AI metrics. [Note: As an example of issues of taxing tokens: Different LLMS use tokens more or less efficiently. Plus, what is a token? Different LLM's likely have a different definition of what a token is. A company could game the system by using an LLM that is very efficient with it's tokens. It could be argued that this could be a "let the market decide" kind of metric, and the most token efficient LLM would win. But who is to say that the most token efficient LLM is the best LLM? This could be a bad incentive to promote. Then there could be a cat and mouse system where government is trying to make the most pragmatic rules for taxing tokens, and corporations are trying to exploit the rules to their best advantage. The cat and mouse system will always exist, but I think with tokens, it feels like a weak premise to base a tax on because a token is hard to directly relate to the economic value the use of an LLM that is consuming and producing tokens provides.]