Posted on 02/17/2017 11:49:37 PM PST by nickcarraway
How do you define robot vs machine vs software vs a toaster?
Do you tax a factory robotic arm the same as general purpose robot?
What about software? Where do you draw he line between a report writing software and one that just compiles a predefined accounting report?
It would make sense to tax the robot, if you can define it, but there are too many shades of gray. Probably have to tax the company output instead.
“Robots don’t get paid.”
But everyone needs to eat and slowly but surely robots will take over every single job. Including fixing robots.
Work cannot be a requirement of “making a living” if there is no more work for anyone to do...
“Develop a skill set that cannot be duplicated by a robot.”
I’m very close to engineers working on the cutting edge of AI and cognitive science. We are on the verge of true artificial intelligence that truly recreates human thinking but with the speed/accuracy of a machine.
Once that occurs, machines will quickly and exponentially grow more skillful than humans can now begin to imagine or keep up with.
I’m terrified by what I’ve already seen and tell them “kill it in the womb and burn it with fire” but my more tech-loving peers are stupidly optimistic...
Bees don’t redesign themselves. Plus they are apoarently under enviromental pressures of some kinds. Looms were programmed with punched cards a long time ago. There is no conceptual problem with heirarchies of design levels. Microprocessors have niw long been designing future microprocessors. Humans just still need to be ultimately in control of their life and environment. See the wizzard’s apprentice in Fantasia.
Will the world’s freaks demand transgender robots?
AFL-CIO?
There are plenty of skills that a robot cannot perform. Arts and crafts. Running a non-fast food restaurant. Landscaping. Home repair (although robots could be set on simple tasks). And so forth. I actually wouldn't be surprised if most of the work that can be robotized has actually already been robotized.
At my job, I talk to people and answer and send emails all day long. I can't imagine any part of my work that can be robotized.
Gov’t needs to issue you bots to tend your garden so you can eat. What you do with your time is up to you.
Once AI passes the Turing Test, your job will be obsolete. Only a decade away (unlike fusion powerplants).
Proves these “tech giants” aren’t who we’re told they are.
I seriously doubt that. I have advanced education and over ten years of experience in my field and over 30 years of work experience in total. I’m not certain a robot could substitute for the wisdom and empathy a human being builds up over a lifetime. Sure, it could be programmed to mimic these qualities for routine situations, but what about when the unexpected arises? We have to abide by rules and regulations at work, but people are constantly presenting me with situations that are not covered by the rules. What do I do then? A robot, no matter how well it passed the Turing test would be stuck, but for me, getting stuck is not an option. Etc., etc.
Robots also have the quality that the more humanlike they are, the more they enter that uncanny valley where humans find them creepy and repulsive. In work where people skills are a must, how can a robot that seriously freaks out a number of people perform? If it is made to not look human, thus avoiding the uncanny valley, how does it convey a sense of empathy (which it really does not have)?
Gates believes the person who uses the robot should be taxed. If that’s the case then people doing their taxes on home computers should be taxed for putting accountants out of work. So called smart people never think before they speak.
No,Sky net will represent them.
No,Sky net will represent them.
Agreed. Also, how many rooms full of stenographers, filing clerks and craftsmen have Windows computer systems evacuated from the workplace?
When I call into bureauracies I find I’d rather interact with a bot unless I’m talking to someone with the power to overide The Rulz and provide satisfaction and clear my issue immediately and forever. Rare is that. I can easily envision logic to accomplish what I want. The bureaucracy can not, but a learning software could.
No now wait he has a point. Let the company pay a robot tax fee.
But also Gates also has to pay a tax labor fee for every piece of Software or INTEL chip that enables that Robot to operate. There now Gates has a piece of the action as well
I thought he was more left-wingey than that....
For that matter, when most jobs are replaced by robots, humans who would otherwise be working...
Throughout history, industrialization has leveraged the power of the workforce and as a result, the standard of living. Otherwise, the perfect full-employment model would be Ancient Egypt where thousands toiled with a minimum of tools and almost no technology to produce the pyramids.
By this logic, every time someone writes a piece of software automation that makes Microsoft’s development process more efficient, that piece of software should be taxed based on the developers it “replaced.”
Somehow, I don’t think the competitive Bill Gates of old as CEO of MS would have endorsed that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.