Brains in a Bar: Should Robots Be Taxed?
Discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) often seem to lead to visions of a dystopian reality. We believe that the tech itself isn't anything to be afraid of, but the narrative we’ve created around it can elicit fear for some.
This is the first time (in the history of innovation and industrialization) that the human mind is at risk of being replaced. The difference between AI/ML and other periods of innovation (such as the industrial revolution) is that this time the innovation is focused on solving issues of convenience in addition to issues of necessity. It seems that we're moving from AI that is oriented on "command and execute" to AI that is capable of implementing its own solutions and recommendations. This doesn't bode well for human productivity, hence the question: should a robot (AI) tax be implemented in order to guard against the potential impact on labor?
Last week during our inaugural Brains In A Bar speakeasy meetup, we discussed the robot tax conundrum with six members of our community. Our conversation encompassed economics, corporate social responsibility, the role of government, underground economies, and whether there is a limit to the human desire for innovation. Below is a summary of what we deliberated on.
AI’s effects on population growth
Taxes on robots could hamper population growth. People replaced by robots at their jobs will find a home elsewhere in less career restrictive environments - but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the social issues we're creating. There has to be some level of corporate social responsibility applied to robots reducing jobs - be that retraining programs and the like.
“The impact of AI on population growth and migration patterns isn’t something I’ve considered before.”
We're looking at the possibility of capital significantly replacing human labor. Capital investment (in robots/AI) will create entirely new industries and roles that previously did not exist. The issue is whether retraining can keep up to redirect labor efficiently.
Retraining humans
While AI will free people up to focus on higher level problem solving, there are people who enjoy labor and find meaning in it. These people don't seem to want to be retrained to be "creative" or "problem solvers" even if programs exist. This is not something a tax can fix, and we may be looking at an unemployment crisis because people aren’t open to being retrained.
“As an engineer, I feel more at risk of being replaced by AI than I would if I was a creative type.”
Some industries are turning to AI because it can't find people interested in the work, which is essentially the inverse problem. So, why should businesses be taxed for replacing workers, when workers are a business necessity?
Underground economies
A tax could indicate that the private sector has failed to find a viable solution to the issues that accompany the innovation it demands and drives. When the system fails, people head to underground economies, causing issues for society as a whole. It's a supply and demand equation - if there aren't limits to human demand(s) for innovation and progress, then there's no risk that AI will ever replace us. Therefore, there’s no need for a tax. If AI does discover a limit and people reach peak satisfaction (and no longer have demands), then our entire notion of work changes and a tax may be the only solution.
“The human quest for fulfillment, which drives demand, doesn’t seem to have a cap. Will AI find the cap and end the need to innovate further?”
While no consensus was reached during our discussion over drinks on whether a tax would ameliorate or exacerbate the issue, the group agreed that so long as rapid growth remains a corporate priority, private enterprise isn't incentivized to address the impact on labor.
What are your thoughts on taxing robots? Share your perspective on the comments below, or let us know of a question you want to pose for the next edition of Brains In A Bar.