Should robots pay taxes like humans workers?

[RVtitem]

• Tweet

If robots are going to steal human jobs and otherwise disrupt society, they should at the very least pay taxes.
That's the takeaway from a draft report on robotics produced by the European Parliament, which warns that artificial intelligence and increased automation present legal and ethical challenges that could have dire consequences.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/technology/europe-robots-taxes-jobs/

[Empedocles]

If robots are going to steal human jobs and otherwise disrupt society, they should at the very least pay taxes.
That's the takeaway from a draft report on robotics produced by the European Parliament, which warns that artificial intelligence and increased automation present legal and ethical challenges that could have dire consequences.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/technology/europe-robots-taxes-jobs/

Luddites were 19th-century English textile workers (or self-employed weavers who feared the end of their trade) who protested against newly developed labour-economising technologies, primarily between 1811 and 1816..

When the two person flight deck (getting rid of the flight engineer) first came out on large commercial airplanes, there were massive protests by the pilot's union in Australia. Boeing had to offer the 767-200, designed with a 2 person cockpit, with a 3 person cockpit to Ansett so the flight engineers could keep their jobs even though they had nothing to do except belt in.

Needless to say, over a quarter century later, Qantas is flying the much bigger A380 with a two person cockpit without a single peep from the union. The redundant flight engineers found other jobs or became pilots themselves.

Society has always adjusted to disruption, whether painfully or not but it will adjust.

[veritas]

I noticed a lot of fantastical nonsense coming from the EU. In the name of we are progressive they've been dreaming up fantasias with mere words, and not doing their job like clean up the ICC, entrenched corruption, deal with the migrant crisis and so forth. Not sure how long the EU are gonna put up with this spiraling charade.

If anyone should deal with machine learning, robotics it should be a pragamatic conglomerate with proven advocacy experience ie. the UN because everyone ignores the UN anyway but at least they have a wide reaching network of proving hegemonies are ignorant to the human condition let a lone machines.

[veritas]

Machine learning seems to be reaching the same buzz as cloud, but no evidence of it yet other than marketing and more software projects with existing tools.

[Empedocles]

Machine learning seems to be reaching the same buzz as cloud, but no evidence of it yet other than marketing and more software projects with existing tools.

They're still feeding it the necessary information, you know, like kick-starting a motorcycle.

4th October, 2016, during their PIXEL launch (new Android phone) is a date Google wants us to remember:

We announced the 1st version of Android 8 years ago today. I have a feeling 8 years from now we'll be talking about Oct 4, 2016.

— Hiroshi Lockheimer (@lockheimer) September 24, 2016

It may seem Google's offering us nice phones, a new app (Allo), etc. AI being the multi-trillion dollar prize, they wanna keep everything in house...and we the public will feed it massive amounts of data.

[veritas]

Problem with these tech types is they think the world revolves around them. How popular are Google hardware? Barely hear of them just like those failed Microsoft phones and those phones come with Microsoft word etc.

I'll give you an example of where there's a massive amount of data already and most of it meaningless. HEALTHCARE. For decades or centuries I should say, patient heart rate, BP, and so forth have been recorded. There's so much mess, that data gets wiped from the system in 7 years and that policy holds for genetic, blood, bio material etc. Data is meaningless without a context and a predictive purpose.

People sqwak about machine learning like they've discovered factory machines for the first time when it's been around for decades. People squak about data like it's gold when it's just numbers that can be manipulated to whichever, whatever will. AI is just another squak to iterate a marketing trend. AI itself is as slow as science. It brings me back to the analogy of quackery. Right now is the AI quackery stage, organizations pretending AI has happened for marketing and funding when it isn't there yet.

AI development is analogous to science development. Not even CERN's statistical prowess can analyze all that data from a scientifically controlled vacuum. How do you suppose an even bigger poole of mess outside healthcare and CERN is gonna play out?

Nothing. Just fuzz.

The problem right now is science.

Scientists are notoriously behind engineers, developers, computer scientists etc. who'll continue to produce hotshot stuff but with limited accuracy and botched predictions because they share that common void of lacking a science mind. Scientists these days are so stuck in the rut in publishing +ve results rubbish, hobbling for prestige, they don't do what they're supposed to do - science, carefully examine data from observations, be honest about data patterns linked to theories and so forth. Same goes for physicists I noticed they've hit a rut and have plateaued somewhat and perhaps this is because they got too lost in fantasy media as opposed to carefully examining actual data. Unless these practices change, there ain't gonna be much of an AI future.

[Empedocles]

Problem with these tech types is they think the world revolves around them. How popular are Google hardware? Barely hear of them just like those failed Microsoft phones and those phones come with Microsoft word etc.

I'll give you an example of where there's a massive amount of data already and most of it meaningless. HEALTHCARE. For decades or centuries I should say, patient heart rate, BP, and so forth have been recorded. There's so much mess, that data gets wiped from the system in 7 years and that policy holds for genetic, blood, bio material etc. Data is meaningless without a context and a predictive purpose.

People sqwak about machine learning like they've discovered factory machines for the first time when it's been around for decades. People squak about data like it's gold when it's just numbers that can be manipulated to whichever, whatever will. AI is just another squak to iterate a marketing trend. AI itself is as slow as science. It brings me back to the analogy of quackery. Right now is the AI quackery stage, organizations pretending AI has happened for marketing and funding when it isn't there yet.

AI development is analogous to science development. Not even CERN's statistical prowess can analyze all that data from a scientifically controlled vacuum. How do you suppose an even bigger poole of mess outside healthcare and CERN is gonna play out?

Nothing. Just fuzz.

The problem right now is science.

Scientists are notoriously behind engineers, developers, computer scientists etc. who'll continue to produce hotshot stuff but with limited accuracy and botched predictions because they share that common void of lacking a science mind. Scientists these days are so stuck in the rut in publishing +ve results rubbish, hobbling for prestige, they don't do what they're supposed to do - science, carefully examine data from observations, be honest about data patterns linked to theories and so forth. Same goes for physicists I noticed they've hit a rut and have plateaued somewhat and perhaps this is because they got too lost in fantasy media as opposed to carefully examining actual data. Unless these practices change, there ain't gonna be much of an AI future.

"Get a horse!"

That ol' rallying cry of technophobes of yore.

My horseless carriage has GPS.

I'm impressed. 

[veritas]

GPS is just satellite technology that's been around since man landed on the moon. Just because it happens to be commercialized to an affordable dumbed down restricted version, doesn't mean science has progressed.

I'm not a technophobe, I'm a realist. I refuse to be swept away by fuzz.

A horse isn't some slave. Animal cruelty.

[Empedocles]

GPS is just satellite technology that's been around since man landed on the moon. Just because it happens to be commercialized to an affordable dumbed down restricted version, doesn't mean science has progressed.

I'm not a technophobe, I'm a realist. I refuse to be swept away by fuzz.

A horse isn't some slave. Animal cruelty.

But...but...the realists during the days before cars were imaging that the heart would explode if subjected to speeds over 100mph or that stepping on the moon's surface would ignite the moon dust.

But horse taste good when ground up like beef patty.

School cafeteria used to serve it about once a month.

[veritas]

I'm just gonna pretend I didn't read that.

Please don't mistaken realists for detractors.

To get to the bottom of things, one has to first face facts. Unfortunately the hype isn't one for truth. Things are gonna happen, third wave tech is happening, but not in the way of marketing and capitalist ventures.

[Empedocles]

President Barack Obama on How Artificial Intelligence Will Affect Jobs

President Barack Obama on the Future of Artificial Intelligence

President Barack Obama on What AI Means for National Security

[RV Pundit]

That stupid coming from EU. They can tax the cost of buying those robots and their outputs.

[Georgesoros]

Yes. That way use the money to improve infrastructure.

That stupid coming from EU. They can tax the cost of buying those robots and their outputs.

[MOON Ki]

I have read the draft proposal, and it is a draft.  It is short and quite straightforward.    The media types just wanted something to get excited about.    Here is what it actually says on such things:

...
Bearing in mind the effects that the development and deployment of robotics and AI might have on employment and, consequently, on the viability of the social security systems of the Member States, consideration ought to be given to the possible need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contribution; takes the view that in light of the possible effects on the labour mark and AI, a general basic income should be considered and invites all member states to do so;

In other words, if there is the possibility that people might get replaced by robots, then we should think about ensuring that  people are paid enough to cover what would otherwise be lost tax and social-security contributions.   Seems reasonable to try and ensure that those who get replaced with robots do not fall through the social-welfare safety-net just because they got replaced before they made enough contributions to the system.

And:

whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequity in the distribution of wealth and influence;

I see nothing wrong with the raising of concerns.   At the very least, I'd imagine that those who get replaced by robots in employment would be concerned about their relative wealth and influence in society.

I see little in the report that I would classify as "nonsense" or "stupid".    On the contrary, it raises many points that  people ought to be already thinking about .... such things as civil-law liability in the face of increase automation.   For example, there is already some excitement about "self-driving" cars.    Suppose such a car kills someone while the owner is lounging in the back seat.   Where does responsibility lie---the owner?   the car?  the car manufacturer?   the software guys?   Intel for the "Intel inside" controlling chip?   

[veritas]

President Barack Obama on How Artificial Intelligence Will Affect Jobs

President Barack Obama on the Future of Artificial Intelligence

President Barack Obama on What AI Means for National Security

Love this. Wise words from Obama.

[Empedocles]

I have read the draft proposal, and it is a draft.  It is short and quite straightforward.    The media types just wanted something to get excited about.    Here is what it actually says on such things:

...
Bearing in mind the effects that the development and deployment of robotics and AI might have on employment and, consequently, on the viability of the social security systems of the Member States, consideration ought to be given to the possible need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contribution; takes the view that in light of the possible effects on the labour mark and AI, a general basic income should be considered and invites all member states to do so;

In other words, if there is the possibility that people might get replaced by robots, then we should think about ensuring that  people are paid enough to cover what would otherwise be lost tax and social-security contributions.   Seems reasonable to try and ensure that those who get replaced with robots do not fall through the social-welfare safety-net just because they got replaced before they made enough contributions to the system.

And:

whereas at the same time the development of robotics and AI may result in a large part of work now done by humans being taken over by robots, so raising concerns about the future of employment and viability of social security systems if the current basis of taxation is maintained, creating the potential for increased inequity in the distribution of wealth and influence;

I see nothing wrong with the raising of concerns.   At the very least, I'd imagine that those who get replaced by robots in employment would be concerned about their relative wealth and influence in society.

I see little in the report that I would classify as "nonsense" or "stupid".    On the contrary, it raises many points that  people ought to be already thinking about .... such things as civil-law liability in the face of increase automation.   For example, there is already some excitement about "self-driving" cars.    Suppose such a car kills someone while the owner is lounging in the back seat.   Where does responsibility lie---the owner?   the car?  the car manufacturer?   the software guys?   Intel for the "Intel inside" controlling chip?   

Obama did touch on that also. Quite interesting:

President Barack Obama on How We'll Embrace Self-Driving Cars

[MOON Ki]

This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry just went to a group that has created really tiny machines.    This reminded me of  an idea from the 1980s----I forget the author---that robots would  someday get so small that they could replace pills etc.    For example, a person with a cancer tumor might take a bunch of tiny robots and wash them down with a glass of orange juice or a mug of beer.   The little fellows would then work their way through the bloodstream and (using something resembling GPS or whatever) get to the tumor and sort it out at a molecular level.   I don't know what they would do after  that, but one can imagine them cleaning up trash (into little nanobags) and then working their way to a part of the body where they would get pissed out or pooped out ... or perhaps dis-assembling themselves into harmless really tiny pieces.   

Naturally, that was scoffed at as "crazed science".   But today we have this:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/tiny-robots-can-clear-clogged-arteries-180955774/?no-ist

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418085333.htm

http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/microbots-using-nanotechnology-in-medicine/

How it will look in, say, 2050:


Nanobot laboring on a cell


Nanobot mixing it up with blood cells

[veritas]

I've been to a few talks about nanotech health the past couple years. There isn't much there at the moment in the way of diagnosis let alone for curative purposes.

Cutting edge in reality right now (so not concepts, ideas etc.) is for facilitating vaccine development.

Engineers could technically make things at the nano level BUT, to actually program the little bot to accurately detect which are cancer cells or not depends on how well scientists develop evidence based algorithms. There's too much trash analysis being developed by computer scientists who just have no clue how medical evidence are sourced, how curative agents actually work etc. etc. that's not gonna change much in the medical world the next couple decades because the way medical researchers think is like asking a wombat to cure cancer.

Medicine is tricky in the sense one size doesn't fit all. That little bot could work for one person but not for the other person in the same way some people respond to analgesics like aspirins whereas others respond better to herbal tea. I guess it's finding that threshold like a bell curve where that bot can be sensitive and specific enough to be curative for the majority.

The only real way that can be implemented successfully is utilizing live stream data into predictive formats constantly monitored and updated by skilled persons. At best in the next couple decades is developing nanobots for more accurate surgical application. I don't think this present organic civilization is intelligent enough to develop evidenced based algorithms that would be curative for things like cancer. I imagine a future with perhaps AI half-breeds, like half human, half robots capable of extraordinary collective acuity. I believe only that kind of efficiency and processing power can perhaps treat malignancies like cancer without recurrence.

The problem with cancers and diseases today is us. If we really want a cure for all these ailments then we need to pay the price because nature, the gods demand it for all the damage we've done. The only way out of this is creating a new society that takes humanity out of the center. Only when humanity is out of the center and afar, can such intuitions and solutions be more obvious.

I have a lot more to say about this.

I've been thinking about this for years....

[veritas]

I'll give you a personal example of how extraordinarily complex and contentious cancer is.

When I was in Washington DC, I was caught in the middle of an argument between a top cancer surgeon and another up and coming top cancer surgeon because they couldn't agree on whether the dark hues on the x-rays were cancer cells or just cells stuck together.

Regular oncologists and surgeons in Sydney didn't even recognize that. But they don't have the humility to admit they have no idea yet top cancer surgeons, top oncologists readily admit they have no idea and have to make guesses all the time whether it is cancer or not or some other manifestation of something like a body on inflammation overdrive and subsequent development of ulcers and so forth.

Often a patient don't even have cancer but it takes more than a village of experts to get even close to an accurate diagnosis. 70% of cancer diagnoses according to the top oncologists I spoke to personally say it's incorrect. This is why patients seek second and third and multiple opinions because there's so little understanding of cancers, when you think about it, the human body in general. Have we really advanced much since penicillin? Surgically.. yes with technology advancing, better monitoring systems etc. But for diseases? Not much at all. We seem good at recognizing and isolating anomalies and treat it like the villain because that's all we know. Our minds are wired to think no more than that.

This is in part why I say it won't happen with having just humans at the center. These diseases, cancers and so forth are signs that this current civilisation is nearing an end. Ultimately we are creating technological advancements and accelerating on innovations in decentralized domains- eventual anarchy- lawlessness- not for the preservation of our species, but to prepare the way for a new civilisation.

[MOON Ki]

Medicine is tricky in the sense one size doesn't fit all. That little bot could work for one person but not for the other person in the same way some people respond to analgesics like aspirins whereas others respond better to herbal tea.

You have just made a case for the little bots.   Unlike aspirins and herbal tea, whose effects can be "iffy", the little bots would work at a different level: inspect the cell and do the job; if the cell looks different from what was expected, then, via Bluetooth or something, download the right program or at least send a signal that different bots are required.

The only real way that can be implemented successfully is utilizing live stream data into predictive formats constantly monitored and updated by skilled persons.

The "skilled persons" would just be doing straightforward image analysis (pixel on, pixel off) and above-average pattern recognition.   Nothing that a halfway-decent 2050-bot couldn't do.     

The problem with cancers and diseases today is us. If we really want a cure for all these ailments then we need to pay the price because nature, the gods demand it for all the damage we've done. The only way out of this is creating a new society that takes humanity out of the center. Only when humanity is out of the center and afar, can such intuitions and solutions be more obvious.

Human "progress" and "civilization" has mostly consisted of fighting Nature and its random "Gods".   In red, you have strengthened your case for the bots: these are serious, life-or-death situations, and we need to reduce the "opportunities" for  humans to f**k up.    A surgeon with a shaky hand from a hangover, or a bot that spent the same night recharging its batteries and downloading "updates" from "Central"?