"Peter C. McCluskey" wrote:
> >I think you're missing the point. Some AIs can tax other AIs,
> >just as some humans now tax other humans. The relative
> >abilities of humans and AIs are irrelevant.
>
> I think people are missing your point because it is irrelevant to
> the concerns they are raising.
> Who will control whether humans benefit from taxation? Moravec
> assumes without much justification that humans can remain "the powers
> that be" as far as this question is concerned without having many of
> the abilities that people expect are needed to remain "the powers that be".
> While not absurd, it is sufficiently far from any extrapolation from
> how existing societies work that it seems appropriate to assume it is
> improbable.
I only claimed that it wasn't crazy to imagine AIs paying taxes.
I made no claim about who would get the tax revenue.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:25 MDT