[Harmattan]

The EU parliament is soon going to debate a draft to regulate AI and robots. I cannot tell if this is utterly stupid, even by EU standards, or some machiavelic plan betting on the Parliament removing the anti-business parts and leaving the rest. Reuters

* Robots would be taxed like regular workers. Industrials would have to pay social taxes upon them, to make sure that our enterprises are all outsourced to China and the USA! Sing with me: we are idiots, we are idiots ♫

The stupid rationale is that destroying jobs would create unemployment, which is economic illiteracy. At best they affect the geographical and skills distributions, incidentally improving or deteriorating employment in a inconstant and unequal way, Softwares destroyed local low jobs in the countryside in favor of good ones in international poles, while true AI will do the exact opposite.

* Robots would gain legal personas. The untold consequence would be that AI could now become certified like any human, therefore removing entry barriers for AI in the protected jobs (physician, accountant, etc). I suspect lobbies will make this part adopted. Another untold consequence could be that the maker would no longer be responsible for the robot's faults.


The first point is completely stupid (sorry for the repetitions but I am stunned), the second is good but its true consequences are untold and I wonder if the authors understand this, and how many EU representatives will.

[soron]

I agree that the EU plans seem to be a bit premature. It will take a while yet until we see "I Robot" with the kind of AI and the ability to move and interact with the environment.
Still, I believe it will come - possibly sooner than autonomous cars, which are the next big hype.

But when they come they will kill a lot of jobs. It will become impossible for most people to have a steady income. That is when the problems will start.
So at least the intention of the EU parliament is clear: Once robots start to replace humans on a universal scale, they must somehow be taxed - because that tax will be necessary to pay some basic income to everyone who is out of jobs because of robots.

Now you may say that there are already plenty of industrial robots about. That is true. But they all share one feature: They are stationary, and are usually specialized for a narrow set of tasks.
Once robots become mobile and smart enough to change locations and replace humans anywhere, anytime - then a solution must be found.

[layman]

Great, so the uk has no defence against killer robots now either?

[Istanbuller]

Business friendly regulations are good for business environment and economic growth. It is a must for letting people to create successful business models.

The world will not repeat the mistake they did on the internet. Unregulated internet killed so many business models and left many unemployed people.

[Harmattan]

Now you may say that there are already plenty of industrial robots about. That is true. But they all share one feature: They are stationary, and are usually specialized for a narrow set of tasks.
Once robots become mobile and smart enough to change locations and replace humans anywhere, anytime - then a solution must be found.

Yes automation destroys tons of jobs, and this is why it is so great.

As long as people will have unsatisfied desires, there will be new jobs because someone will now have more money (the consumer, stockholder, enterprise). Once people will have everything they want with just ten hours of weekly work, then they will stop working beyond that. Things always worked like that.

The employment problems we are seeing now are not caused by automation. They would exist in a world with twice more or twice less automation. But try to ban (tax) automation in Europe as you propose while the rest of the world embraces it, and we will have a 50% unemployment.


But let's say that I am wrong and that suddenly it's jobapocalypse. We would be able to produce everything without working, yet you would ban automation and force people to do useless jobs rather than rework your distribution model?! What a sick social policy.

[Okonkwo]

* Robots would gain legal personas. The untold consequence would be that AI could now become certified like any human, therefore removing entry barriers for AI in the protected jobs (physician, accountant, etc). I suspect lobbies will make this part adopted. Another untold consequence could be that the maker would no longer be responsible for the robot's faults.

From a legal perspective that is simply not the case.

Corporations are legal personas as well, yet they do not have access to certifications pertaining only to natural persons, i.e. humans.

The maker will likely be liable for damages according to the same legal figure of imputatio that already applies to employers and their employees or manufacturers and their products. One can expect new statutes to expressly adress these issues though, as that is one of the most contested aspects of automation in legal scholarship.

[Thompson_NCL]

[quote="Harmattan"As long as people will have unsatisfied desires, there will be new jobs because someone will now have more money (the consumer, stockholder, enterprise). Once people will have everything they want with just ten hours of weekly work, then they will stop working beyond that. Things always worked like that.

The employment problems we are seeing now are not caused by automation. They would exist in a world with twice more or twice less automation. But try to ban (tax) automation in Europe as you propose while the rest of the world embraces it, and we will have a 50% unemployment[/quote]

Not sure I follow your logic here. Let's assume automation takes off and now most commercial goods are produced by automated plants: car, televisions, phones, shoes, curtains etc. What goods or services do you imagine people - specifically the large numbers of low skilled workers - will do?

[Harmattan]

Not sure I follow your logic here. Let's assume automation takes off and now most commercial goods are produced by automated plants: car, televisions, phones, shoes, curtains etc. What goods or services do you imagine people - specifically the large numbers of low skilled workers - will do?

Jobs related to conception and production amount to half of jobs, so first of all it would mean that you would now have to work twice less to get the same things as what you currently enjoy. Actually it would mean that many associations, foundations or governments could now produce some products for free or a bargain, using wastes to get most of resources.

Which jobs would remain? Salesmen, nurses, hairdressers, teachers, artists, performers, designers, etc. There would be a lot more of them since people would want to work less. And since people would now have more free time and money, they would travel more and consume more entertainment and services, increasing demand.

What if people no longer value human nurses and human salesmen? Great, so now it means that you need even less work and enjoy even more cheap or free goods and services. The ideal would be a society where you do not have to work for essential needs but are tempted to do so for luxuries. Not at the same place for twenty years, rather two hours here, two years there.

[Thompson_NCL]

So I assume you imagine a world of universal basic income then? Because if huge swathes of us lose our incomes I am not clear where the demand for those services will come from.

[Harmattan]

Once again I do not believe that at first there will be a mass unemployment. I think unemployment would actually decrease.

However I believe that people will want to work less and less because products will become dirty cheap and because more and more of them will be free, produced by not-for-profit actors.

So, no, I do not believe in basic income, although I do not exclude it. I rather believe in abundance and the rise of not-for-profit economic agents in the good old' free market.

[Beren]

Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons" and their owners liable to paying social security for them if the European Union adopts a draft plan to address the realities of a new industrial revolution.

So if you employ a robot worker instead of a human, you still will have to pay social security for them. Sure, that must be absurd or even evil of epic proportions, and must serve the globalist-capitalist bourgeois elite's interests!

[Harmattan]

So if you employ a robot worker instead of a human, you still will have to pay social security for them. Sure, that must be absurd or even evil of epic proportions, and must serve the globalist-capitalist bourgeois elite's interests!

It serves no one's interests, it would harm everyone. It is a stupid project from stupid people.

(or a seemingly stupid project from smart people who will stealthy remove the stupid parts and keep the pro-worker reputation they built).

[Beren]

It serves no one's interests, it would harm everyone. It is a stupid project from stupid people.

(or a seemingly stupid project from smart people who will stealthy remove the stupid parts and keep the good press coverage).

Please let me not clarify who the epitomes of stupid are.

[soron]

I think some people may not have reflected upon the consequences of having truely autonomous human-like robots. It will create a few new jobs but kill a lot of old jobs in the process. Far more than are created. And that is the Achilles heel of all those business friendly models: They all depend on continuous, unlimited economic growth. Which is a myth that is nevertheless preached as the pure gospel by neolibs.
Growth depends on people spending money, which depends on people earning money, which depends on people having jobs. It is no coincidence that countries like France or Italy don't do as well as Germany although they are economic powerhouses: The wealth distribution is even more off.

Historically, the appearance of unlimited growth was maintained by a simple paradigma: Once every generation, a massive destruction of wealth would have to take place through war, natural desaster or economic collapse. But nowadays, we try to contain the consequences of such events, which results in the bubbles not being burst.

The result of this is, that there is never an new era of rebuilding which means in other words jobs and opportunities for everybody. All the economic bubbles of the past few years had one thing in common: They were specialist niches, not universal markets. And while a few people were doing amazingly well, this did nothing for the majority.

Right now, there is a massive research underways to create human-like robots. In Japan these are regarded as the solution to their demographic problem. So I have no doubt that we will see such robots sooner or later.
Now consider this: Those robots are meant for supporting the elderly at home. In order to do this - to cook a meal in the microwave, to wash their hair, to bring the TV remote control - robots will have to be able to navigate their environment, to understand spoken language, and to do manual labour with the same level of sensory feedback on how much force to apply as a human would using his hands.

When we have robots at that level - then a lot of service jobs will go down the drain. Directly, in the form of "I Robots", and indirectly, by using the same algorythms and sensors in other pieces of technology.
There can not possibly be enough new jobs created through this, and I don't see how such a job would last for 40 years, throughout a human's work life.

Now I agree on one thing: "taxing robots" isn't going to solve anything. But the "robotic revolution" will create a massive new situation, and we can't even begin to predict what changes will stem from that.

But in my opinion, one of the consequences will be that people spend less, because they earn less. And they will save more, because a Euro saved is a Euro in my pocket, whereas a Euro earned through work is a Euro minus tax and socials (in Germany that's health, pension and care).
It might go so far that people start growing food in gardens or even small scale agriculture - simply because there is not enough money to buy healthy food that doesn't contain 60% sugar.

This reduced spending behaviour will be poison to the "unlimited growth" dependend neoliberal economy. Sooner or later, I am convinced, there is no way but to go back to some kind of Keynesian economics.

So yes, my own vision of the future is rather dystopic but I fear it's realistic.

[Harmattan]

I think some people may not have reflected upon the consequences of having truely autonomous human-like robots. It will create a few new jobs but kill a lot of old jobs in the process.

The number and duration of jobs are functions of the demand for human activity. If there is not enough demand, this means humans already have what they want and do not want to work more than they already do.

(or, in a dysfunctional economy like today, they cannot find an offer matching their demand or they find one in a cheaper country)

And that is the Achilles heel of all those business friendly models: They all depend on continuous, unlimited economic growth. Which is a myth that is nevertheless preached as the pure gospel by neolibs.

This is not a "business-friendly" approach, this is a "human-friendly" one. Attempting to limit automation is a "human-hostile" approach. Automation is a blessing and the only question is how to build a society that makes the best use of it. And I am not a fucking neolib, I am economically a social-democrat who believes in a strong government.

And again we do not have to maintain employment. What we should want is a society where you can live without employment and where you can work when you want, how you want - at least to a reasonable extent. We do not need a strong economic growth for this: the relationship with growth and employment is not constant over time and will change in the future like it did in the past.

Growth depends on people spending money, which depends on people earning money, which depends on people having jobs. It is no coincidence that countries like France or Italy don't do as well as Germany although they are economic powerhouses: The wealth distribution is even more off.

France has one of the best Gini coefficient in the West and one of the worse employment rates in the West. Your theory is easily disproved by this example and many others. Actually it rather seems like the unemployment rate is lower when there are more inequalities.

When we have robots at that level - then a lot of service jobs will go down the drain.

Which is great because it means you will be able to freely enjoy those goods and services without any labor. That way your labor will only be needed for the few human activities that you still want to be done by humans, even if robots could do them: judge, policemen, teacher, salesman, artist, performer, hairdresser, etc.

Stop trying to maintain people into wage-slavery. Let the robots do that for us. Let people claim back their labor. Instead try to think how you will build a not-for-profit fab. You only need a starting capital and resources, there are some in our wastes.

[Truth To Power]

And that is the Achilles heel of all those business friendly models: They all depend on continuous, unlimited economic growth.

Growth need not be continuous, just positive on average over time. And there is no reason to think growth must be limited, if you understand what it is.

Growth depends on people spending money, which depends on people earning money,

No, lots of people get money without earning it. In fact, most of the value produced in most advanced capitalist economies goes to rich, greedy, privileged parasites who have made no commensurate contribution to production in return.

which depends on people having jobs.

Yes, but the people who have the jobs are not the same people who get the wealth to spend.

Right now, there is a massive research underways to create human-like robots. In Japan these are regarded as the solution to their demographic problem.

That depends on whether you think the demographic problem is "not enough workers" or "children a cost without a benefit."

So I have no doubt that we will see such robots sooner or later.

It's starting to look like sooner.

When we have robots at that level - then a lot of service jobs will go down the drain. Directly, in the form of "I Robots", and indirectly, by using the same algorythms and sensors in other pieces of technology.
There can not possibly be enough new jobs created through this, and I don't see how such a job would last for 40 years, throughout a human's work life.

Right. Automation that freed human labor for work machines could not do was very different from automation that works better than a human at any work most human workers could do.

Now I agree on one thing: "taxing robots" isn't going to solve anything.

Well, it will do one thing: continue the pretense that the right thing to tax is production, rather than privilege.