Should robots pay taxes like humans workers?

[veritas]

I hear what you're saying.

The bot becomes the eyes and ears and adjust diagnosis and so forth. There's something similar already with key hole surgery. Definitely it'll benefit less invasive surgical procedures. But, these things still require an expert surgeon. When keyhole surgery is done by a novice they have better chances of getting it right with open surgery. Keyhole surgery thus isn't performed by interns and so forth. Only very experienced surgeons have consistent high success rates. Contrary to what some might think oh younger people are better with technology but evidence has shown far from the case with robotic surgery. Even though virtual reality and machine learning have been in health fields for decades, it hasn't accelerated better outcomes. Mortality rates and quality of life aren't that much better.

The more complex computing, the more specialised experts needed.

Problem with BT and its a major problem with IoT, is that BT cuts out more often than WiFi. Highly unreliable technology. There's just no stable infrastructure for wireless networks at the moment. This is the reason why heavy industries haven't transitioned to wireless. These guys still uphold world war technologies.
Humans will always fuck up regardless. Trying to control for this is what autocratic regimes do. Cushioning these fuck ups is what the markets and insurance is for. Apparently it's still a mystery how leaving the market to just chaos and randomness just works.. I believe that same approach should be used with AI. Leave it to crowd sourcing, open everything up so it just works out somehow.

[Empedocles]

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?   

It's already starting to happen. I hope these ethical questions are seriously being looked into:

"Elon Musk wants you to take your hands off the wheel, foot off the gas, and let him do the driving. Rather, let his cars take over."

[MOON Ki]

Keeping "geriatrics" off the road:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-road-tests-self-driving-cars-to-keep-aging-motorists-mobile-1453357504

Toyota, which publicly has been more conservative about projecting when autonomous vehicles may be commercially available, recently invested $1 billion in a Silicon Valley artificial-intelligence operation. Nissan is pledging to have an autonomous vehicle on the market in 2020, earlier than Toyota or Honda Motor Co.

[MOON Ki]

I hear what you're saying.

The bot becomes the eyes and ears and adjust diagnosis and so forth. There's something similar already with key hole surgery. Definitely it'll benefit less invasive surgical procedures. But, these things still require an expert surgeon. When keyhole surgery is done by a novice they have better chances of getting it right with open surgery. Keyhole surgery thus isn't performed by interns and so forth. Only very experienced surgeons have consistent high success rates. Contrary to what some might think oh younger people are better with technology but evidence has shown far from the case with robotic surgery. Even though virtual reality and machine learning have been in health fields for decades, it hasn't accelerated better outcomes. Mortality rates and quality of life aren't that much better.

The more complex computing, the more specialised experts needed.

Not quite.    I'm for completely eliminating humans in such matters, precisely because, as you delicately put it, they "will always fuck up regardless".    And it can be done: getting and interpreting medical images is just a matter of good camera-work and pattern recognition (with some learning from past patterns).   Surgery is little more than a skillful wielding of knives and needles-and-thread: butchers and tailors working on live meat.  Nothing a good robot couldn't do.

That little progress has been made so far cannot all be attributed to the technology.    Doctors are naturally not keen to support anything that might reduce their big bucks, and that gets translated into impediments concerns in relation to "safety" .... laws and regulations aplenty.

Humans will always fuck up regardless. Trying to control for this is what autocratic regimes do. Cushioning these fuck ups is what the markets and insurance is for. Apparently it's still a mystery how leaving the market to just chaos and randomness just works..

There need not be an attempt at control.   The selling line can be that people can save on insurance, invest their savings in the markets, and thus have more money and a more lavish lifestyle than the Joneses.    There is no mystery as to how the markets work: They are basically all about finding suckers and skinning them.  In that process, it sometimes helps to have produce and peddle something "useful"---a beneficial side-effect but not strictly necessary, as the likes of Madoff have routinely shown.

[Empedocles]

I hear what you're saying.

The bot becomes the eyes and ears and adjust diagnosis and so forth. There's something similar already with key hole surgery. Definitely it'll benefit less invasive surgical procedures. But, these things still require an expert surgeon. When keyhole surgery is done by a novice they have better chances of getting it right with open surgery. Keyhole surgery thus isn't performed by interns and so forth. Only very experienced surgeons have consistent high success rates. Contrary to what some might think oh younger people are better with technology but evidence has shown far from the case with robotic surgery. Even though virtual reality and machine learning have been in health fields for decades, it hasn't accelerated better outcomes. Mortality rates and quality of life aren't that much better.

The more complex computing, the more specialised experts needed.

Not quite.    I'm for completely eliminating humans in such matters, precisely because, as you delicately put it, they "will always fuck up regardless".    And it can be done: getting and interpreting medical images is just a matter of good camera-work and pattern recognition (with some learning from past patterns).   Surgery is little more than a skillful wielding of knives and needles-and-thread: butchers and tailors working on live meat.  Nothing a good robot couldn't do.

That little progress has been made so far cannot all be attributed to the technology.    Doctors are naturally not keen to support anything that might reduce their big bucks, and that gets translated into impediments concerns in relation to "safety" .... laws and regulations aplenty.

Humans will always fuck up regardless. Trying to control for this is what autocratic regimes do. Cushioning these fuck ups is what the markets and insurance is for. Apparently it's still a mystery how leaving the market to just chaos and randomness just works..

There need not be an attempt at control.   The selling line can be that people can save on insurance, invest their savings in the markets, and thus have more money and a more lavish lifestyle than the Joneses.    There is no mystery as to how the markets work: They are basically all about finding suckers and skinning them.  In that process, it sometimes helps to have produce and peddle something "useful"---a beneficial side-effect but not strictly necessary, as the likes of Madoff have routinely shown.

I really don't think any doctors have any say in what's going coming, just like lawyers and other white collar jobs that maybe could go out of fashion before to long.

On the other hand, doctors would probably take the following advances as a bonus, helping them see more patients in a day:

Artificial Intelligence Is Helping Doctors Find Breast Cancer Risk 30 Times FasterMore.....