The author starts out with pointing out that "Good guys will obey rules … The bad guys will not", and then goes on to propose a rule to "solve" the problem.
Probably because your brain had to forget stuff to make room for the garbage. Also had to work a little harder to get to the point of whatever the article is babbling about.
I think it's easier. Mandate that companies have to pay an AI as much as they would pay any number of employees doing its jobs. They'll stop using them right away.
Into an account for the AI, which they claim is so powerful it can run the world, to use as it wishes. So, yeah it would sit there unused. But that doesn't matter, because they'd never go for it.
Why restrict it to just AI? Think about all the people that were replaced when things didn't need to be copied by hand. Why not pay printers to offset the loss of human labor?
...right, to stop them from replacing human labor-- but my point was why try to stop only AI from replacing human labor? Why not all computers, or technology that makes human labor less necessary? What makes replacing human labor with AI so special that it needs special rules for it? We didn't put in special rules when telephone operators were replaced, or when ice could be made for fractions of a penny in your house instead of getting someone to deliver it to your door.
I think instead of trying to "solve" the elimination of human labor, we should focus on divorcing the need to work from the ability to live a comfortable life. Then it doesn't matter if people's jobs get replaced.
Add comment