Technology

59391 readers

3961 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

240

Boston Dynamic show off their brand new Atlas (youtu.be)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/technology

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

They still have the hockey stick around as a reminder to Atlas.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The automation tax that gates/etc proposed to fund UBI/social support networks is making more and more sense.

I'm all for UBI, but the automation tax is a quagmire.

In this theoretical new tax, tell me what qualifies to be taxed?

An Atlas autonomous robot? Sure, absolutely. How about instead a hydraulic arm that is controlled by a human? Previously there were 4 humans that moved the widget from A to B, but now they have 1 human operating a joystick for a net loss of 3 jobs. Is that taxed?
How about an Excel macro? Prior to the macro, there was one person filling in the spreadsheet the entire 8 hour workday. Now that person was replaced with an Excel macro that runs in 5 minutes with one click. That is automation too right? What would you tax? The cost of the person replaced?
Who pays the tax? A company that buys an Atlas robot after the law is passed? Absolutely. How about a company that bought Atlas robots 24 hours before the law passed? How about the company that bought them a year before the law passed? Now apply the Excel macro automation. Excel macros have around since the 1990s. Are you going to go back to the first macro run and tax every company retroactively? How about if the macro only does part of the work?

Automation tax is a nice idea but a nightmare to try to make in policy. Additionally, it will have a stifling effect on any business efficiency efforts after it exists.

If the tax is based upon workers losing their jobs to automation, it will have a massive knock on effect limiting new hires. A company would be very leery of hiring a worker if they could be accused (and taxed) of automation replacement when that worker is let go.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

UBI is needed for power redistribution more than wealth redistribution. Sure, one good reason is the employment displacement from robotics/ai. But a robot tax is far inferior to general income taxes. Beyond your examples, pipes and wires into your home are automation. Machines with human operators are automation as well.

Even if you were to only tax the robot users, what about those who get rich from building yachts for the robot users?

China has a big lead in robotics because nearly all manufacturing is done there. That is there massive competitive advantage in EVs as an example. As a national competitiveness, and consumer prices, measure, incentivizing people to go collect their water from a nearby river, and heating wood from nearby trees, and otherwise committing to full employment through less automated processes, is a massive decline in standard of living.

UBI does let you create your own job. Sales and design will always be needed, even if design is inputs into an AI prompt. Without the disempowerment of warmongering rulership, AI will serve the disinformation and murder needs of that rulership. UBI/freedom dividends funded by taxes on extreme income is the path to make the winners pay for human sustainability instead of human extermination.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Most laws aren't retroactive. If you do the thing before it's illegal, then you skated by. That could very easily be the answer here, especially as most all the physical automation is barely existent. If a company deploys now, they don't pay the tax, but they will when they upgrade models.

As to code automation, same rules apply. Excel macros get by, but I would apply the tax on companies that replace white collar jobs via SaaS or other applications as their core businesses model, or for that line of buisness for vendors that do a lot of things. It would have to be refined as to where you draw the line, but you could.

[–] partial_accumen 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Most laws aren’t retroactive. If you do the thing before it’s illegal, then you skated by. That could very easily be the answer here, especially as most all the physical automation is barely existent. If a company deploys now, they don’t pay the tax, but they will when they upgrade models.

You'll need to provide your definition of "physical automation" for the purposes of your argument. As it stands that is NOT clear, which is part of the quagmire of all the Automation Tax approaches.

As to code automation, same rules apply. Excel macros get by, but I would apply the tax on companies that replace white collar jobs via SaaS or other applications as their core businesses model,

What does this mean? If a company is still running on-prem MS Exchange servers for company email, then the law passes, then the company switches to Office365 for email instead, does your law hit that company with an Automation tax? If so, how would the tax be applied? Amount of spend on Office365? Amount spent on salaries of former MS Exchange administrators? How long would the tax apply? A year? Forever?

What I'm also seeing is that all encumbant companies (shielded from the automation tax because they already put automation in place) would have an advantage forever against existing companies trying to make automation changes (and being hit with the tax).

Another loophole I see is companies completely liquidating or selling to a newly formed company so that there are "no jobs lost to automation, because this company from day 1 has always used automation".

or for that line of buisness for vendors that do a lot of things. It would have to be refined as to where you draw the line, but you could.

I don't know what this means.

Can you give a concrete example of your Automation tax? Situation before your law goes into place, the law passing, then the Automation tax a company would pay when they make a specific change in your example?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Tons of questions here, but sure I'll give it a go.

Any autonomous or nearly autonomous hardware device would be taxed. Exceptions can apply. Maybe autonomous tractors are not taxed because food is needed, but unemployed farmers also need to be cared for.

As to the code question and m365, maybe, maybe not. It may be reasonable to tax all cloud automation as a whole, or maybe just all SaaS, leaving IaaS and PaaS out of it. Exceptions may apply.

The tax would be on the good or service forever, yes. If you displace human workers with automation, then thry need their basic needs met for human decency, but also so they don't tear society to pieces, justifiably in my mind.

Incumbent companies using automation may have an advantage, but only until they use a new robot or new automation. That advantage goes away if they are stuck 5-10 yr behind to avoid a tax. If they want to keep avoiding it, newer companies using taxed but getting a huge productivity booster will surpass them. That will incentivise them to use the tax producing goods or services and remove any initial advantage.

I think I would also be okay with "no tax until you hit X automations" as well. You clearly can't give tax breaks on employees, as not employing people will be the whole point of this, but you could likely work it out.