[throwaway29303]

Nothing but we should most definitely progressively tax these systems based on a percentage of the difference between the least efficient model[0] and the most efficient human. (Assuming, of course, that the least efficient model is more efficient than the most efficient human.) Use those funds to retrain people who lost their jobs for the mythical jobs every manager/CEO keeps talking about.

Suppose the most efficient human produces $250k/y worth of labour and the least efficient model produces $1M/y worth of labour. So $1M - $250k = $750k. %1 of $750k = $7.5k. Now multiply that by the number of companies/people who bought these services.

Models are assumed to a) become more efficient and b) be competent on several and different types of jobs.

This would also include robots but those systems aren't yet ripe, IMO. I'd let them marinate a little further before taxing them.

Apply this tax to very large companies that produce/sell these systems.

[0] - This incentivizes companies to keep investing in more efficient and capable models/systems.

[dragonwriter]

> we should most definitely progressively tax these systems based on a percentage of the difference between the least efficient model and the most efficient human. (Assuming, of course, that the least efficient model is more efficient than the most efficient human.) Use those funds to retrain people who lost their jobs for the mythical jobs every manager/CEO keeps talking about.

Too much gameable measurement on the tax end, and too much unnecessary bureaucracy both to support that on the tax end and the retraining end; simplify by just taxing capital accumulation more heavily than it currently is (which includes, but isn't limited to, capital accumulation due to implementing and reaping the returns of automation) and use the resulting revenue to fund a UBI; peopel for whom retraining has positive expected returns will have an incentive to do it, and those for whom that is not a good use of the money will make use of it otherwise.

You don't need to create an elaborate system to incentivize companies to keep investing in more efficient and capable systems, as long as you aren't taxing them at 100% or more, the fact that there are more returns to be had by having more efficient systems does that already.

[throwaway29303]

  Too much gameable measurement on the tax end, and too much unnecessary bureaucracy both to support that on the tax end and the retraining end;

I'm not sure if I agree with this because, after all, AI systems are going to be taking care of this so... What's bureaucracy for us is a couple trillion cycles on a CPU/GPU on a machine somewhere in a data center.

An agent to take care of the bureaucracy, another to retrain someone for a new job, etc.

And, yes, the long-term plan would be to fund UBI at some point; because if these systems become so capable and so efficient might as well let them do everything for us while we humans enjoy leisure time.