AI is a tool we can't ignore. But it is also going to be deeply disruptive and help burn the planet, and so it should be taxed, heavily. Why is Rachel Reeves saying nothing about that?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Is AI Rachel Reeves' wildest dream?
I have a feeling that it is, and the fact that I think it is worries me to my very core.
Why? Because what Rachel Reeves thinks about AI is that it will make the wealthiest in the UK wealthier, because it certainly isn't going to make anybody else better off, because it's going to undermine jobs, most of all, and it's going to create disruption, and it's going to put businesses, well, out of business. And as a consequence, we're going to see a greater concentration of the wealth of the country in the hands of a few.
And that, in Rachel Reeves' dream, is fantastic for two reasons.
One, she wants to be one of the very wealthy, and so she aspires to keep them happy.
And two, she thinks that this might provide her with the additional tax from a few people that will keep the country going.
She doesn't care about everybody else and what they might pay because she considers it to be inconsequential.
I don't love AI. I think it has potential. But, I also think it needs to be seriously taxed because it is creating a wealth stream at cost to the planet, and that's why we need to consider taxing it hard because there is no doubt at all that every time we push the button on ChatGPT, we burn our future just a little bit more.
We need to consider the price for that and the price for that is the tax that we need to pay when doing so.
She doesn't care about that.
She only thinks about the increase in the gross domestic product of the UK, and she doesn't care about the allocation of that GDP.
But I do. I care about who benefits and I want to ensure that everybody alive now is fair to those who are going to come when we use AI.
Rachel Reeves, wake up, smell the coffee. AI is great, but there is a price to pay, and you are not willing to charge it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Rachel is RIshi Sunak, or George Osborne in a skirt. All from the same Oxford PPE stable, all in the race to make a sh1t load of money.
Vile transactional values.
Rishi Reeves also believes she will cut government spending, by replacing jobs with AI, thereby adhering to the ConLab fiscal rules ideology.
To what extent will this much anticipated capability be truly independent of the Silicon Valley tech bros (or any other agency able to turn it off or use it as a bargaining chip/lever for extortion) ? This applies not only the AI but the intellectual, technical and ?financial infrastructure it sits on: the plumbing and code that controls data gathering analytics, and onward distribution to organisational consumers across Govt and large service providers.
Palantir has been in the UK toolkit for at least a decade, and govt tech infrastructure is heavily reliant upon AWS. I’ve not had time to update previous experience but these questions certainly have not featured in any mainstream journalism that I have seen. Tech sovereignty is serious geopolitics and journalists need to wake up – there is more than a whiff of it behind Starmer’s ambitions for UK digital transformation and his behaviour wrt Trump, and I know for a fact that Mandelson is fully cognisant.
Much to agree with
There are 8 levels of A.I. Stage 1 is rule based (no learning) through to Stage 5 (self aware). Becomes a bit flaky/bonkers after that.
Useful roles for A.I:
Control systems where one of the variables is stochastic/non-linear over periods of more than 24hrs & some prediction is needed to optimise system state.
Agricultural systems in which there are a wide number of variables (expert system and learning)
Admin systems e.g. house conveyancing (or notaries).
I’d be a bit unhappy if there was a tax on using A.I. in such systems.
As for Reeves, I doubt if she even knows there are 8 levels.
We tax people doing those tasks with employer’s NI
So, why not AI?
“We tax people doing those tasks with employer’s NI
So, why not AI?”
Agree with your statement 100%!
I saw a clip of Peston asking a question of Geoffrey Hinton as to how we assure the appropriate distribution of the dividends of AI. His one word answer was “Socialism “.
Preston followed up with “You just need socialist leadership?” which elucidated another one word answer “Yes”.
🙂
AI has become an integral part of everyday life, imposed by the tech companies, and sometimes we don’t even realize that it’s there. Where are the rules and regulations to control it? People who are only interested in the benefits of what AI can do for them are missing the important issue of unintended consequences. They have no clue how it works and of the potential devastating effects on our way of life.
AI is only as good as its initial programming, and then, in certain cases, it can reprogram itself.
Who is providing the initial programming? Humans. AI has biases, and all other human traits you can think of. It even knows how to deceive ( lie?).
It will provide you with responses based of the data sets it has access to, basically the internet. It can fake images and videos, make you sound like any celebrity. How about writing essays for you. Sure. And the list goes on.
AI could be a great tool, and should be used as a TOOL.! But it needs to be regulated. Who will do that?