this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
499 points (96.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
292 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.intai.tech/post/43759

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/949452

OpenAI's ChatGPT and Sam Altman are in massive trouble. OpenAI is getting sued in the US for illegally using content from the internet to train their LLM or large language models

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] slipperydippery@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What would you tax exactly? Robots don't earn an income and don't inherently make a profit. You could tax a company or owner who profits off of robots and/or sells their labor.

[–] RatzChatsubo@vlemmy.net 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It would have to be some sort of moderated labor cost saving tax kind of thing enforced by the government

[–] devzero@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Should we tax bulldozers because they take away jobs from people using shovels? What about farm equipment, since they take away jobs from people picking fruit by hand? What about mining equipment, because they take away jobs from people using pickaxes?

[–] PlebsicleMcGee 4 points 1 year ago

And we're just gonna let the pickaxes off without a tax?

[–] RatzChatsubo@vlemmy.net -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If the machine replaced the human, yes. That's the argument being made currently.

Imagine if we simply taxed machine profits after 40 hours of work. You not only can give kickbacks to large companies, but you could also rewire profits to UBI

[–] stu@lemmy.pit.ninja 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the wrong way to go about it, though. Just tax businesses' profits and close the bullshit loopholes they exploit to avoid paying them.

[–] devzero@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But 40 hours of "work" is poorly defined. If you had everyone digging with spoons on your construction site, then you might need 100 people at 40 hours per week. If you have everyone shovels, you would only need 10 people at 40 hours a week. Do you want to tax shovels for "taking the job" from 90 people?

[–] RatzChatsubo@vlemmy.net 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah idk, I'm no expert. I just want wealth redistribution

[–] PlebsicleMcGee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we think of production as costing land, labour and capital, then more efficient methods of production would likely swap labour for capital. In that case then we just tax capital growth like we're doing now (Only properly, like without the loopholes). No need to complicate it past that

[–] veganzombeh@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure how feasible it is but I've seen a sort of "minimum wage" for robots suggested which is paid to the government as tax.