Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Anything can be taxed out of existence (well, legal existence anyway) but I don't see any reason to adopt tortured metaphors - like equating human income to AI output - if anybody wanted to do that. Income taxes exist because it's easy to the government to raise money this way (most people have income, and need to have income to live, thus providing unending stream of taxes) and it appears "just" - after all, if you are getting some money, why not share it? Sharing is caring. But a lot of things had been taxed, so AI output could be taxed too, of course - I just not see how "moral" comes into it. On what theory there's even a moral question here?
How does moral not come into tax questions?
It's one of the main ways that the government slams it's weight around in the economy. How it does so can impact everyone's livelihoods.
I don't think this is a proper answer.
Yes, but this does not explain a claim like "taxing X is a moral imperative" or "taxing X is morally abhorrent". I mean, you could make - and maybe even prove, who knows - such claims, but none of that directly from the fact that taxation is important. Yes, taxation is important, but it doesn't make a phrase like "tax advantage for AI labor is still morally wrong" more meaningful. You, essentially, claim that taxing AI is a moral necessity, but you provided no argument for it so far but saying "government taxes a lot of things and it has large impact". True, but does not prove that the questions of taxing AI has a moral dimension at all, let alone prove that the positive answer is morally necessary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link