How much do we "income tax" one robot? First of all of course, it doesn't make an income. Secondly, should a robot that replaces 5 peoples' labor because of speed or size be taxed about as much as income tax for one person? or five people? Third, how many robots do employ, for taxation purposes, if my 100,000 robot arms are controlled by a single integrated deep-learning program instance?
So instead, just have a value-added tax on the economic value of each level of transformation/integration in a production supply chain. Simple.
Ramp the VAT up enough to pay for UBI.
Simple taxes like VAT are harder to dodge than complicated ones like robot tax would have to be.
Wrong. In the new economy, what one person receives without working for, another AI guided robot must work for without receiving, and one automated-system owner must receive a slightly smaller profit than the insane profit they would have received making lots of valuable things with almost no human employees to pay.
So they're a felony for Pence then, is what you're saying.
And it's a much worse felony, presumeably, that President Trump communicates about governance related issues using his unsecured Android phone.
Hypocrisy of the highest order.
The whole email affair was a mountain made out of a mole hill to scam gullible people into voting for someone who wants f*cking corporations to have the right to demand genetic testing of employees if it will notch up their profit one notch.
F*ck people are stupid. Is there another planet with intelligent life?
A joint, open-sourced AI project by IBM, Google, and leading universities should be built to serve as an objective, disinterested physical and social world modeller and it can answer truth-likelihood and objectiveness/bias tendency of all statements except those whose answer is 42.
We could call it "Oracle" - no wait, scratch that. Any other suggestions for its name?
Extracted from the sailfish developer documentation: "we recommend using C++" to develop apps which do anything non-trivial, to paraphrase.
Ok that's all I need to know about sailfish.
Wake me up when you have a mobile OS where the main app development language was invented in the 21st century, and is, for example, safe, simple, and well-designed.
Going forward, the machines will need less human labor in their design, supervision, and maintenance, to the point where that human labor will be an insignificant portion of the activity (physical and information processing) going into the operation of the automated economy and the production of valuable goods and services by that economy,
Productivity, when defined as value of goods and services produced divided by cost of HUMAN labor needed to produce that value, will go through the roof.
Money is a proxy for whatever people value (including goods and services produced by economic activity). The most fundamental measure of that resource-transforming economy that produces goods and services as outputs is the amount of work (in the physics sense of the word: low-entropy energy flow, measured in joules) that goes into all stages of the extraction, processing, transportation/distribution, packaging whatever of the goods and services. Going forward, most of that work (in joules) will be done by machines whose failure times are predicted by other machines and whose repair or replacement is handled by other machines. Humans will be bystanders, and some few fortunate ones will be owners of automated organizations that employ machines to produce value (goods and services).
So in such an automated economy, how exactly is money a proxy for human labor? When the amount of human labor will have been largely de-coupled from the amount of value of goods and services produced?
Your "proxy" equation breaks down in this scenario, in an analogous way to how using fossil-fuel energy consumption growth as a proxy for GDP growth will break down when energy production is technologically weaned away from fossil fuels.
On s personal note, being insulting when you clearly didn't understand what was being said does not look good on you.
Look, if this tech can actually make something like 600 mile EVs a reality, not to mention grid-scale energy storage to enable power grid stability with massive wind and solar generation displacing coal,
then there is no reason why a Manhattan-project scale effort (government led, or even UN led) should not be made to commercialize it in 5 years rather than 15.
No reason that is, other than the black hole vacuity sitting in the white house.
Money is a proxy for work, where work is low-entropy flows of energy. Note that work can be done by machines, and these days, by largely unsupervised machines.
So the question becomes: How do we get the money generated by machine-work back into the hands of people in a non winner/owner/designer takes all manner, so that the other people don't die/loot/revolt?
Value-added Tax also known as Goods and Services Tax
should be levied on each organization which produces net revenue by transforming inputs into higher-value outputs in the economy. The tax should be levied as a percentage of the revenue - input costs.
Bill Gates suggested income-taxing robots. Sounds good at first glance, but wait: - How many people's work did one robot replace? 5? 20? 1/2? - How many robots are there if 100,000 arms are controlled by one machine-learning computer program?
What you're missing is that AI and automation is advancing to be GENERALLY more effective and more cost-effective than people's labour, GENERALLY, as in, across very wide swaths of potential tasks. That implies a profoundly changed game, and as far as automation vs humans, it will be zero-sum, because for just about any job category, the automation/AI will be the more effective and cost-effective hence market-selected option.
A lot of people don't seem to get that this crossing point (automation > human capability) is coming soon (and in many sectors has already come).
Individually, and in society and political culture, we have to GROK this, then go through the usual stages of grief: Denial – The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality. Anger – When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Bargaining – The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief. Depression – "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; Acceptance
And then, after not too long a grieving pause, we need to come up with real solutions (as contrasted with keeping the Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians out, which are misguided FAKE solutions.) At the core of a real solution will be us reconceptualizing what people are here for and where we should get our self-worth. At the core of a real solution needs to be fair and adequate ways of distributing the proceeds of a substantially automated economy.
The point is, the FOSS project(s) are your portfolio, similar to how a graphic artist, photographer, architect demonstrates their ability with a portfolio.
Can't be bothered to do at least one hobby/self-training/benevolent programming project? You don't love programming (or the castles you can build with programs) enough to be that good at it, so apply elsewhere.
By using a "name-brand algorithm" which I learned in 2nd year or whatever, umpteen years ago, you are testing for cramming ability, recency of test-cramming at school, and mental copy-paste of whatever was crammed.
You are definitely not testing for problem comprehension and creativity of solution or methodical approach to solution. All of those skills will be severely impaired by time-pressure panic, if you have a good programmer in front of you who has not crammed that particular cookie-cutter name-brand algorithm lately.
It would be one step better if you just said: write an algorithm to sort this array/list of values. But you still chose a problem for which comprehension, creativity, and methodical solution skills are not needed, if the person happens to pattern match your posed problem with the bubble-sort they just memorized for interview-readiness purposes.
So if anything, choose a simple-ish problem that is NOT one that has readily available mental copy-paste cheats available.
Interview casually and friendly, by credential review, experience review, and conversation about current issues and trends and technologies in the field, with some open ended questions designed to probe for technical insight, comprehension etc.
Then take your shortlist of candidates after that, and code review a (preferably non-trivial) github repo that they are the originator of or the major contributor to. Look for clarity of the "what the hell is this all for" commenting that comes with the project, as well as good header commenting, good method, variable and class naming, good code factoring etc.
That's it. No FOSS projects? Ask them to re-apply later.
What you're missing is that that's the smartest way to do it.
You get a snippet of code (from stackoverflow) which has probably been tested to solve the problem; an assumption probabilistically justified by noting that other commenters on stackoverflow would probably have corrected the answer if it didn't work for them when they tried it, or if they knew it was wrong by inspection or experience. Also, many programmers would be embarrassed to submit an untested snippet to stackoverflow, lest they be called an idiot.
Contrast that probable reliability of snippet with the crap completely untested piece of coding you just came up with under bizarre amounts of pressure in a whiteboard session in an interview. I'll take the stackoverflow code thanks very much.
"Typically 1 cable, 1 DSL, four wireless networks (being resold by dozens) and a satellite service (that sucks). Many places also offer a consumer fiber, but often with very high install costs. Plus you can always break bread and get a real business class service.
I'd add another option for geeks. A tower and directional antennas, to leach off nearby hotspots. I can see a dozen+ useable hotspots from my tower top, without spending much on antennas or cracking anybodies locked network. Some are decent."
So like I (fairly obviously) meant, basically two options for high-ish performance, relatively uncapped internet access, over wire or fibre, for the vast majority of people, and for many apartment/condo dwellers it may be just one, as that building may have a data deal with the phone company and no cable available, for example.
I notice you were silent on my suggestion of forcing by law more competition for service over these relatively few hard-wired connection possibilities. Is it because it causes cognitive dissonance for you to think about government regulation actually enabling more competition? If so, I hate to break it to you but that happens all over the place. For example SEC-regulation of stock markets increases shareholder confidence and participation so increases capitalization and competition for capitalization.
Ok, you say you're in favor of ISP competition. Great. So am I. But since the number of last-mile lines into everyone's house/apartment is usually limited to one or two (the cable company and the phone company), that implies that to get that competition, we would need a strong law that forces those few and thereby almost monopolistic last mile providers to open their data networks to fair-priced wholesale rental by competing ISPs.
If you're in favor of that, then maybe we can agree that further regulations might not be required., since competition would take care of it.
Except... people seem to act like consumers all the time, rather than pro-sumers, whereas arguably a healthy Internet of the future is more pro-sumer with closer to equal bandwidth in upstream and downstream direction. This may be necessary to implement "people have the power" decentralized internet economy and real privacy via end-to-end encrypted P2P applications. If people are going to have their identity/alter-ego on the Internet, that architecture is the only hard-to-corrupt way of doing that. And people right now probably don't know they're going to need that. So to protect their future interest, I think super-strong (and simple) net neutralitty laws are needed,to allow the different-architecture decentralized economy apps of the near future to work properly.
They're just not supposed to limit that speed in a manner that is discriminatory to one packet source over another. If your content provider can't provide fast serving of content, at source or CDN, you'll switch to a better content provider. Point is, it should be you, the end-user's choice, made in a fair competing market of content sources, not in a market distorted by the presence of highwaymen robbers on some of the data highways.
Slashdot Mirror
of course it's an advertisement.
Google define: advertisement
a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event
a ... thing regarded as a means of recommending something.
How much do we "income tax" one robot?
First of all of course, it doesn't make an income.
Secondly, should a robot that replaces 5 peoples' labor because of speed or size be taxed about as much as income tax for one person? or five people?
Third, how many robots do employ, for taxation purposes, if my 100,000 robot arms are controlled by a single integrated deep-learning program instance?
So instead, just have a value-added tax on the economic value of each level of transformation/integration in a production supply chain. Simple.
Ramp the VAT up enough to pay for UBI.
Simple taxes like VAT are harder to dodge than complicated ones like robot tax would have to be.
Wrong. In the new economy, what one person receives without working for, another AI guided robot must work for without receiving, and one automated-system owner must receive a slightly smaller profit than the insane profit they would have received making lots of valuable things with almost no human employees to pay.
So they're a felony for Pence then, is what you're saying.
And it's a much worse felony, presumeably, that President Trump communicates about governance related issues using his unsecured Android phone.
Hypocrisy of the highest order.
The whole email affair was a mountain made out of a mole hill to scam gullible people into voting for someone who wants f*cking corporations to have the right to demand genetic testing of employees if it will notch up their profit one notch.
F*ck people are stupid. Is there another planet with intelligent life?
after all.
All those physicists who rejected my permanent magnet wheel idea without even the courtesy of a reply will not be feeling so smug now. :-)
Increased loneliness vs the chance of missing baby wombat videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A joint, open-sourced AI project by IBM, Google, and leading universities should be built to serve as an objective, disinterested physical and social world modeller and it can answer truth-likelihood and objectiveness/bias tendency of all statements except those whose answer is 42.
We could call it "Oracle" - no wait, scratch that. Any other suggestions for its name?
Would that be enough to get someone's statement that denies human-caused global warming/climate change labelled as false?
or does it have to be 9 out of 10 dentists who agree?
Someone who knows how to play the bagpipes...
but doesn't.
Extracted from the sailfish developer documentation: "we recommend using C++" to develop apps which do anything non-trivial, to paraphrase.
Ok that's all I need to know about sailfish.
Wake me up when you have a mobile OS where the main app development language was invented in the 21st century, and is, for example, safe, simple, and well-designed.
"But electric cars are not currently viable for long distance travel."
That's what electric high speed trains and hyperloops are for.
Going forward, the machines will need less human labor in their design, supervision, and maintenance, to the point where that human labor will be an insignificant portion of the activity (physical and information processing) going into the operation of the automated economy and the production of valuable goods and services by that economy,
Productivity, when defined as value of goods and services produced divided by cost of HUMAN labor needed to produce that value, will go through the roof.
Money is a proxy for whatever people value (including goods and services produced by economic activity). The most fundamental measure of that resource-transforming economy that produces goods and services as outputs is the amount of work (in the physics sense of the word: low-entropy energy flow, measured in joules) that goes into all stages of the extraction, processing, transportation/distribution, packaging whatever of the goods and services. Going forward, most of that work (in joules) will be done by machines whose failure times are predicted by other machines and whose repair or replacement is handled by other machines. Humans will be bystanders, and some few fortunate ones will be owners of automated organizations that employ machines to produce value (goods and services).
So in such an automated economy, how exactly is money a proxy for human labor? When the amount of human labor will have been largely de-coupled from the amount of value of goods and services produced?
Your "proxy" equation breaks down in this scenario, in an analogous way to how using fossil-fuel energy consumption growth as a proxy for GDP growth will break down when energy production is technologically weaned away from fossil fuels.
On s personal note, being insulting when you clearly didn't understand what was being said does not look good on you.
Look, if this tech can actually make something like 600 mile EVs a reality, not to mention grid-scale energy storage to enable power grid stability with massive wind and solar generation displacing coal,
then there is no reason why a Manhattan-project scale effort (government led, or even UN led) should not be made to commercialize it in 5 years rather than 15.
No reason that is, other than the black hole vacuity sitting in the white house.
Money is a proxy for work, where work is low-entropy flows of energy.
Note that work can be done by machines, and these days, by largely unsupervised machines.
So the question becomes: How do we get the money generated by machine-work back into the hands of people in a non winner/owner/designer takes all manner, so that the other people don't die/loot/revolt?
Value-added Tax also known as Goods and Services Tax
should be levied on each organization which produces net revenue by transforming inputs into higher-value outputs in the economy.
The tax should be levied as a percentage of the revenue - input costs.
Bill Gates suggested income-taxing robots. Sounds good at first glance, but wait:
- How many people's work did one robot replace? 5? 20? 1/2?
- How many robots are there if 100,000 arms are controlled by one machine-learning computer program?
What you're missing is that AI and automation is advancing to be GENERALLY more effective and more cost-effective than people's labour, GENERALLY, as in, across very wide swaths of potential tasks. That implies a profoundly changed game, and as far as automation vs humans, it will be zero-sum, because for just about any job category, the automation/AI will be the more effective and cost-effective hence market-selected option.
A lot of people don't seem to get that this crossing point (automation > human capability) is coming soon (and in many sectors has already come).
Individually, and in society and political culture, we have to GROK this, then go through the usual stages of grief:
Denial – The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.
Anger – When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals.
Bargaining – The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief.
Depression – "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?";
Acceptance
And then, after not too long a grieving pause, we need to come up with real solutions (as contrasted with keeping the Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians out, which are misguided FAKE solutions.)
At the core of a real solution will be us reconceptualizing what people are here for and where we should get our self-worth.
At the core of a real solution needs to be fair and adequate ways of distributing the proceeds of a substantially automated economy.
The point is, the FOSS project(s) are your portfolio, similar to how a graphic artist, photographer, architect demonstrates their ability with a portfolio.
Can't be bothered to do at least one hobby/self-training/benevolent programming project? You don't love programming (or the castles you can build with programs) enough to be that good at it, so apply elsewhere.
If it's all been done before, then why the hell is it being done again??????????
"Oh yeah, sorry about that. We switched to the language-fashion of the day, so you have to re-code bubble sort".
By using a "name-brand algorithm" which I learned in 2nd year or whatever, umpteen years ago, you are testing for cramming ability, recency of test-cramming at school, and mental copy-paste of whatever was crammed.
You are definitely not testing for problem comprehension and creativity of solution or methodical approach to solution. All of those skills will be severely impaired by time-pressure panic, if you have a good programmer in front of you who has not crammed that particular cookie-cutter name-brand algorithm lately.
It would be one step better if you just said: write an algorithm to sort this array/list of values. But you still chose a problem for which comprehension, creativity, and methodical solution skills are not needed, if the person happens to pattern match your posed problem with the bubble-sort they just memorized for interview-readiness purposes.
So if anything, choose a simple-ish problem that is NOT one that has readily available mental copy-paste cheats available.
Interview casually and friendly, by credential review, experience review, and conversation about current issues and trends and technologies in the field, with some open ended questions designed to probe for technical insight, comprehension etc.
Then take your shortlist of candidates after that, and code review a (preferably non-trivial) github repo that they are the originator of or the major contributor to.
Look for clarity of the "what the hell is this all for" commenting that comes with the project, as well as good header commenting, good method, variable and class naming, good code factoring etc.
That's it. No FOSS projects? Ask them to re-apply later.
What you're missing is that that's the smartest way to do it.
You get a snippet of code (from stackoverflow) which has probably been tested to solve the problem; an assumption probabilistically justified by noting that other commenters on stackoverflow would probably have corrected the answer if it didn't work for them when they tried it, or if they knew it was wrong by inspection or experience. Also, many programmers would be embarrassed to submit an untested snippet to stackoverflow, lest they be called an idiot.
Contrast that probable reliability of snippet with the crap completely untested piece of coding you just came up with under bizarre amounts of pressure in a whiteboard session in an interview. I'll take the stackoverflow code thanks very much.
"Typically 1 cable, 1 DSL, four wireless networks (being resold by dozens) and a satellite service (that sucks). Many places also offer a consumer fiber, but often with very high install costs. Plus you can always break bread and get a real business class service.
I'd add another option for geeks. A tower and directional antennas, to leach off nearby hotspots. I can see a dozen+ useable hotspots from my tower top, without spending much on antennas or cracking anybodies locked network. Some are decent."
So like I (fairly obviously) meant, basically two options for high-ish performance, relatively uncapped internet access, over wire or fibre, for the vast majority of people, and for many apartment/condo dwellers it may be just one, as that building may have a data deal with the phone company and no cable available, for example.
I notice you were silent on my suggestion of forcing by law more competition for service over these relatively few hard-wired connection possibilities.
Is it because it causes cognitive dissonance for you to think about government regulation actually enabling more competition?
If so, I hate to break it to you but that happens all over the place. For example SEC-regulation of stock markets increases shareholder confidence and participation so increases capitalization and competition for capitalization.
Ok, you say you're in favor of ISP competition. Great. So am I.
But since the number of last-mile lines into everyone's house/apartment is usually limited to one or two (the cable company and the phone company), that implies that to get that competition, we would need a strong law that forces those few and thereby almost monopolistic last mile providers to open their data networks to fair-priced wholesale rental by competing ISPs.
If you're in favor of that, then maybe we can agree that further regulations might not be required., since competition would take care of it.
Except... people seem to act like consumers all the time, rather than pro-sumers, whereas arguably a healthy Internet of the future is more pro-sumer with closer to equal bandwidth in upstream and downstream direction. This may be necessary to implement "people have the power" decentralized internet economy and real privacy via end-to-end encrypted P2P applications.
If people are going to have their identity/alter-ego on the Internet, that architecture is the only hard-to-corrupt way of doing that.
And people right now probably don't know they're going to need that.
So to protect their future interest, I think super-strong (and simple) net neutralitty laws are needed,to allow the different-architecture decentralized economy apps of the near future to work properly.
They're just not supposed to limit that speed in a manner that is discriminatory to one packet source over another.
If your content provider can't provide fast serving of content, at source or CDN, you'll switch to a better content provider.
Point is, it should be you, the end-user's choice, made in a fair competing market of content sources, not in a market distorted by the presence of highwaymen robbers on some of the data highways.
because partially in the present, and totally in the future, TV is just one of many services on the Internet.
I haven't used regular TV for 15 years, except when I'm in a hotel room that has one.