Over the years, there have been many science fiction authors, myself included, talking about the future challenges of intelligent machines and intelligent robots; one of the biggest anticipated problems, of course, is that humans can’t match the rapid evolution of computer technology. , is getting smarter every day, and at this rate, humans will soon be obsolete, superseded, meaning they won’t need your job or your decision-making skills. Let’s discuss this, okay?
There was an article in Forbes on February 19, 2017 titled: “Alan Turing predicts machine learning and AI’s impact on jobs,” by Gil Press. Obviously, if Alan Turning was talking about this at the dawn of the computer age, it’s not a newly considered topic, the only difference is that back then it was just being considered, and now, today, it’s here.
And now that? What comes next? There have been various concepts floating around. I had an idea worth mentioning. People could take their earnings and buy a robot, lease it to a small business for a fixed amount weekly, monthly, and use that as income. Lots of people could co-buy robots and lease them to companies. Even employee unions could buy industrial robots, and by using such a scheme and strategy to help capitalize on robots for work, employees will slowly join the investor class. Freeing them from a 40-hour work week, giving them more free time and a better quality of life.
There was an interesting article in Fortune magazine titled: “Bill Gates Says Robots Should Be Taxed Like Workers”, by David Z. Morris, February 18, 2017. The article said:
“Microsoft founder Bill Gates makes a rather startling argument: that robots replacing human workers should incur taxes equal to that worker’s income taxes. Right now, the human worker who does, say , $50,000 of factory work, that income is taxable “If a robot came in to do the same thing, you’d think we’d tax the robot at a similar level. Gates argues that taxes, paid by the owners or manufacturers of a robot, can be used to help finance retraining of the workforce” — the transition of workers, drivers and cashiers to health care, education or other fields where human workers will remain vital, with Gates even suggesting that the policy would intentionally “slow down the speed of that adoption.” [of automation] something’, giving more time to manage the broader transition.
This is where Bill Gates is right and wrong: First, this is a potential strategy, especially considering that the government relies on income tax and fewer workers working means less revenue for the government to support the system, society, or country. . Second, it could work well in the short term. Now here’s why I think this argument is wrong.
Gates cited ‘Health services, education’ as potential areas where humans are still needed. Wrong, both sectors of our economy are in bubble mode, both ready to burst. Health care because ObamaCare is about to collapse financially, and health care robots will soon be everywhere. Smart wheelchairs, home care robots and telerobotics in surgery and home care aides; meanwhile, IBM Watson and new entrants are replacing doctors for diagnostics, and we know that HMOs need to cut costs to survive.
Gates’ argument, while interesting and presented with positive thinking, is also a bad example, as education is about to go virtual and higher education is about to enter a financial crisis due to loan debt. student fees, runaway legacy costs at colleges and universities, online education competition.
So while Bill Gates has identified a real problem, not an unknown challenge by any means, and while he’s putting on his thinking cap to open up the dialogue about possible solutions, his early solutions probably won’t work as stated. If you have ideas on how to tackle this looming dilemma, feel free to give feedback, comment, or email me.