AI is likely to start taking over jobs in programming, customer support, and other fields soon. Companies that adopt advanced AI agents could cut their workforce costs by up to 90%.
Why not tax companies using these AI systems and use that money to retrain workers for new roles?
What kind of jobs would we train them for? Big AI companies aren’t putting enough into AI alignment and control because it’s not profitable for them. This is like the ‘tragedy of the commons’ – why do what’s right when competitors who don’t care gain the edge?
So why not train displaced workers to help tackle the alignment problem? Some might need serious retraining, maybe even advanced degrees to prep for these new roles. But with the massive savings companies will get from AI, they could definitely afford to fund this. Let’s set up these taxes and job retraining programs now before AI agents start causing problems and alignment risks grow.
If you add a tax, doesn’t that just make companies less likely to invest in AI in the first place? This could reduce efficiency gains and defeat the whole purpose.
If AI really brings in such huge cost savings, it should lead to more tax revenue, capital investment by companies, and so on. Maybe the government could use some of that extra income for unemployment benefits or retraining programs.
Maybe the solution is to tax all automated AI work, but that could get very tricky. Someone mentioned that extra tax from increased productivity could cover retraining costs. That sounds like the easiest way to go.
@Laine
We’re in a race against time. If we get AGI, then ASI (artificial superintelligence) might end scarcity. Will we reach ASI first or destroy ourselves?
Ashton said: @Laine
We’re in a race against time. If we get AGI, then ASI (artificial superintelligence) might end scarcity. Will we reach ASI first or destroy ourselves?
I agree, but going straight to AGI might be the long way. We don’t expect humans to be good at everything, so why expect that from AI? Let’s create a network of highly specialized AIs working together, similar to how people collaborate.
Maybe ASI will actually help us out of some tough spots.
People have suggested this for a while. The hard part is defining what gets taxed and what doesn’t. It’s easier just to raise corporate tax rates since AI-driven efficiency will likely lead to higher profits.
> And use the revenue for job retraining?
Maybe. Government-run training programs, though? Sounds like a potential mess.
> What kind of jobs would we train people for?
Knowledge workers might need to adapt to manage AI systems.
> Big AI companies aren’t investing enough in alignment because there’s no direct profit in it.
Are people even investing in their own skills?
Whether companies should retrain or not, isn’t it still wise for people to take the initiative and train themselves?
UBI (Universal Basic Income) could be a solution where people receive a basic stipend from the government without strings attached. This idea has been around in the investment world for decades and might happen.
But here’s the thing: UBI would replace all current aid (housing, food assistance) and would only be enough to scrape by.
The better option is for people to keep learning and improving. I’ve been doing it for years to stay competitive. Sometimes I pay, and sometimes my company covers it.
Tech has always pushed people out of jobs. AI might do this on a bigger scale.
@Aven
We don’t need the government to handle retraining. Nonprofits or certified companies could do it.
I’m not saying workers at risk shouldn’t prepare themselves. Both personal and organizational efforts can go hand in hand.
UBI could be great, but retraining might be quicker to set up, and it targets the problem more directly.
People who retired comfortably learned how to enjoy life without working. In the 1700s and 1800s, some who made enough money just stopped working and spent time on leisure. Look at Jane Austen’s novels, where leisure was meaningful.
If we can make time for leisure fulfilling, maybe people won’t miss work as much.
This could be a major shift, and we’ll see how it turns out.