What AI does is increase the return to capital in the economy by reducing the return to labour.
No, simply no. The return to capital is defined by how much competition capital faces when trying to price its output. If there are 20 AIs out there all churning away then the return to capital through the ownership of an AI is going to be about nothing. Possibly even negative.
That, inevitably, means that taxes on capital will have to increase very significantly.
So, the Elysian Tax Policy will be to increase taxes on the returns to capital that don’t benefit from the AI which is the cause of the increases on the taxation of capital.
Blinder.
I think this is the first time I have addressed this issue…..I suspect this is going to be a recurring theme here in the future.
Having jumped, both feet first, into error he’s never going to rethink, is he?
This is all before he gets to grips with the proper basics here. If AI increases output then we’ve all more output to enjoy. We’re richer that is. And why all of us being richer by virtue of higher consumption means taxes must rise upon capital is not adequately explained.
‘Cos he wants our money??
“This is all before he gets to grips with the proper basics here. If AI increases output then we’ve all more output to enjoy. We’re richer that is. And why all of us being richer by virtue of higher consumption means taxes must rise upon capital is not adequately explained.”
Well yes and no.
AI may increase overall output, but not everyone will benefit. Those who the AI has replaced will not necessarily have a job and and income to be able to afford any of the extra output. If (as I was just reading) your job at MacDonalds gets replaced by an AI bot, then you might not be able to afford to eat at MacDonalds any more. AI won’t have made you any richer.
Similarly if an AI chatbot replaces right of centre writers/economists then said writers may be wondering where the next meal is coming from……..
Technology makes us all richer, in the long term. In the short term it makes lots of people poorer. And the faster the change, the more people are on the losing end of it. In democracies that is not sustainable. If AI tech replaces vast swathes of the workforce in a short space of time then there will be consequences at the ballot box.
“AI may increase overall output, but not everyone will benefit”
“Technology makes us all richer”
which is it Jim?
anon: substitute “collectively” for “all” and Jim’s meaning will become clear.
I’ve been playing with ChatGPT a lot and the more you use it, the less impressive it is.
Repeatedly makes up false information about basic things – the plots of famous books, even statements about its own capabilities. It can barely maintain the illusion of a conversation because ChatGPT repeatedly mixes up the subjects and objects. Most of its replies to factual questions are scraped from the first three paragraphs on Wikipedia.
Maybe it turns out that the Turing test wasn’t that useful after all. Sure, ChatGPT might fool humans some of the time, but that doesn’t actually help us, because we already invented plausible bullshit. And we’re not perceptibly closer to Marvin the Paranoid Android.
It’s great at producing “content” tho, and that’s what’s genuinely revolutionary about these ML algos. The internet runs on “content”, most of it shit.
“anon: substitute “collectively” for “all” and Jim’s meaning will become clear.”
And don’t selectively quote me either. I said tech makes us all richer ‘in the long term’. We are all, even the poorest in society, richer today than we were 100 years ago. Its getting from the now to the long term without a revolution caused by the disruption tech can bring thats the issue.
“Its getting from the now to the long term without a revolution caused by the disruption tech can bring thats the issue.”
Indeed so, And as I’ve said many a time people hugely underestimate jobs churn. Folk say 40% of jobs will be gone in 5 years ! and whatever. But 10% of jobs are destroyed each year, 10% newly created. There’s always some tech movement between those two. 40% in 5 years or whatever would be an acclereation of that process but not all that much of one. Assuming that’s 40% extra of course. If it’s only 40% in total then it’s a reduction in the usual rate.
“Indeed so, And as I’ve said many a time people hugely underestimate jobs churn. Folk say 40% of jobs will be gone in 5 years ! and whatever. But 10% of jobs are destroyed each year, 10% newly created. There’s always some tech movement between those two. 40% in 5 years or whatever would be an acclereation of that process but not all that much of one. Assuming that’s 40% extra of course. If it’s only 40% in total then it’s a reduction in the usual rate.”
But thats assuming the new jobs can be done by the people who lost the old ones, and thats by no means a given. The new jobs will be techy ones, involved in the new tech in some way. Its highly likely that the people who lose their jobs to them are not going to have the skills (or the degree of intelligence, or the inclination) to do that sort of work. What is a worker who is replaced as a cook in a fast food restaurant by a robot supposed to do? Become a robot technician? If they had that sort of ability they probably wouldn’t have been working in a fast food joint.
Society is fast becoming inaccessible for people on the lower parts of the IQ curve. The jobs for those people are less and less, and poorly paid and the level of intelligence required to get a ‘good job’ rises constantly. This is not a sustainable path for a society to take.
The great potato fights back against the machines. The movie is surely due soon. 1 man fights back against the terminator armed only with his tax code and toy train set
Ig anyone wants to pop over and ‘like’ the comment below which has appeared on Spud’s blog about the tasks that AI could perform.
“John Cushen says:
“particularly those that involve repetitive tasks or can be easily automated.”
Such as regurgitating your blog posts.
“The Conservatives have done something. It is bad. They are fascists. We need more taxes.”
Think of the savings to your fists not having to type this six times every day.”
As I understand it Jim’s point has been widely accepted within the economics profession, or at least those that looked at the globalisation that took place in the ’90s and 2000s. Collectively we were all better off but the pace of the off-shoring and the concentration of job losses in specific industries and regions meant that whole swathes of the population were put out of work with little prospects and hope – dignity of work and all that.
One of the biggest mistakes from policy makers was not recognising the unsuitability of those who lost their jobs for the new ones that were being created, despite training being made available. Old dogs and new tricks.
The rise of Trump and Brexit are being given as examples of the consequences of the failure to manage the change.
Andre C
Done. And I didn’t buy the fvckin tw@t a coffee either
“@BraveFart
And I didn’t buy the fvckin tw@t a coffee either”
i did look into this but there is no “add laxative” button.
“One of the biggest mistakes from policy makers was not recognising the unsuitability of those who lost their jobs for the new ones that were being created, despite training being made available. Old dogs and new tricks.
The rise of Trump and Brexit are being given as examples of the consequences of the failure to manage the change.”
Precisely. And the speed of the change AI will bring will be even more disruptive, if it isn’t managed properly. Of course it would be quite funny to see the Western white collar world destroyed in the same way they allowed the Western blue collar world to be, but the overall disruption to the whole of society would be greater than could be outweighed by the schadenfreude of seeing the liberal middle classes made to eat the same sh*t sandwich they forced on the working classes.
Grifter spots new non-issue to grift about.
Story at eleven.
Elysian fields of potatoes!
I’m not sure that the much-proclaimed AI revolution will have a giant impact on most things in the near future.
It isn’t “artificial intelligence” in any reasonable sense. It’s a technology which is able to produce mash-ups more or less in a requested style. When it works well, it can seem plausible; but it often doesn’t work well. You can’t use it to write correct news reporting. You can’t use to to write correct marketing materials. You can use it to write dross for the TikTok market.
Thus you’ll not be able to sweep millions of useless civil servants out and replace with efficient AI’s; you can already do that with effective cloud services and well-written websites – and yet they’re still there. You’ll not be able to fire all your technical writers (if you’re a company like IBM or Boeing – because although todays chatbots can write English (or whatever) they cannot be relied upon to write a correct document – quite the opposite.
So – while the tech is indeed a big step forward – what you’re seeing is the hype machine in action, not AI being ready to “take over” anything.
Of course, things will change, but this isn’t El Regs infamous Rise of the Machines ™.
Not yet, anyway.
Employment in western societies is not dropping with tech. Even after trashing our economy with Covid, NZ has a very tight labour market.
There’s plenty of jobs for pure labour, which is actually forcing mechanization of tasks.
Chat bots aren’t going to sweep streets any time soon.
I think nobody will have a job when AI takes over. Every job will be done better than humans. End of story.
Nobody will bother going to school, or university, because there will be no point. No jobs for it.
People will become surplus. Even if you merged AI, with the human mind, AI, would still eventually be better than any human, be that art, science, service, technology, farming, manufacturing, or anything.
It will be interesting.
Possibly, Steve C – but that’s a very distant prospect and ChatGPT999 won’t be it.
I think the Fermi Paradox is good evidence that AGI isn’t possible: if it were, some other civilisation would already have achieved it, and the galaxy would be full of the damn things.
write a blog post calling for more tax on AI in the style of Richard Murphy
ChatGPT
Title: “Equitable Progress: The Case for Taxing AI”
Introduction:
In the realm of technological advancements, Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands at the forefront, promising transformative changes across industries. As we witness AI’s rise, it is crucial to explore the implications it has on our economic landscape and address the pressing need for a fair and equitable distribution of its benefits. In this blog post, we delve into the case for taxing AI, advocating for a system that ensures social responsibility and inclusivity.
The AI Boom and Wealth Concentration:
The exponential growth of AI has led to the accumulation of vast wealth for a select few. While innovation should be celebrated, it is disconcerting to witness the increasing concentration of economic gains in the hands of a privileged minority. By taxing AI technologies, we can bridge the wealth gap, fund social programs, and invest in initiatives that benefit society as a whole.
Addressing Job Displacement:
The rapid development of AI has sparked concerns about job displacement and the potential impact on the labor market. It is vital to recognize that the advent of AI does not absolve us of our responsibility to safeguard employment opportunities for all. Taxing AI can provide a means to fund initiatives focused on retraining and reskilling workers, ensuring they are equipped to adapt to the changing demands of the AI-driven economy.
Supporting Ethical AI Development:
Taxation on AI can also incentivize ethical development and deployment of AI technologies. By imposing taxes, we can create funding mechanisms that drive research into AI ethics, transparency, and accountability. This would promote responsible AI practices, mitigating the risks of algorithmic bias and discriminatory outcomes. Ultimately, it is in society’s best interest to foster an AI landscape that upholds ethical standards and prioritizes the well-being of individuals.
Investing in Education and Public Goods:
Taxing AI can serve as a revenue stream to bolster education systems and invest in public goods. By allocating funds towards education, we can equip future generations with the necessary skills to thrive in an AI-driven world. Additionally, these tax revenues can be directed towards healthcare, infrastructure development, and social welfare programs, creating a more equitable society that benefits all citizens.
Ensuring Corporate Accountability:
By taxing AI, we can hold corporations accountable for their societal impact. It is essential that companies leveraging AI technologies contribute their fair share towards the public good. Taxation serves as a mechanism to redistribute wealth generated by AI-driven enterprises, enabling governments to address societal challenges and invest in a sustainable and inclusive future.
Conclusion:
In an era marked by rapid technological advancement, we have a responsibility to shape the trajectory of AI in a manner that benefits society as a whole. By implementing a tax on AI, we can address wealth concentration, support workers affected by automation, promote ethical AI practices, invest in education and public goods, and ensure corporate accountability. Let us advocate for a tax system that fosters equitable progress, where the rewards of AI innovation are shared by all, contributing to a more just and prosperous future.
Disclaimer: This blog post is a work of fiction and has been written in the style of Richard Murphy for illustrative purposes. Richard Murphy is a renowned economist and author known for his distinctive writing style and expertise in tax policy and economic issues. The opinions expressed in this blog post do not reflect the views of Richard Murphy or the author.