Good idea! I believe the arts provide the cultural infrastructure necessary to make good choices about AI. The technology appeared so quickly and is so powerful that individuals (and the culture, not to mention the economy) just weren’t ready.
You mentioned that a fictional arts program gets cut for a tax concession for a data center. This wouldn’t happen. Tax concessions are tax discounts to attract data centers to come. Even though there’s a large tax concession, the total tax received is higher than if the data center wasn’t there. It’s not a revenue stream that was there but disappeared. Also a tax concession at the state level of usually to help big tax revenues at the city level. The way that data center funding is reported on has been really imbalanced to the point of inaccuracy by lack of context.
All that being said, a 1% tax seems great. Though might be better on something like UBI or Elle’s employee owned business structures which can help with inequality. More writers sounds great but another way to achieve that is more distributed wealth so more people can take on precarious and highly competitive careers like cultural creation. Broader recipients for this tax would also make it more equitable and politically viable.
Skeptical going in, but I really kind of like this idea. And I'm a frequent and happy user of AI in my work and personal life. But the intellectual thievery and deluge of slop seems to demand a measured response and this modest tax might be a benefit to us all. How do we start this?
A great idea, but unfortunately the politicians who could push through something like this are controlled by those billionaires, so it would be shocking if it even got to consideration.
If “slop” is a negative externality, why not tax AI users instead, like a plastic bag tax at the grocery store, rather than a general revenue tax on AI companies? I’ve also never heard of a data center reducing local tax revenues.
Putting the responsibility at the consumer level is exactly the problem with most anti-pollution fixes - the idea that we have to recycle while plastics companies are free to make the crap at profit. This places the culpability with the massively profitable purveyors of AI slop. Also, why would it be "better" to pass the costs to individual consumers? I'm confused about where this political instinct is coming from?
In that case, the problem is that your proposal doesn't tax slop. It's just a general tax hike on big AI companies. It could even make slop marginally worse if AI companies respond by reducing R&D. And even if some do respond by raising prices, why wouldn't the actual slop producers (a subset of users) just switch to cheaper competitors?
First, I think the prospect of selling this politically as something that hits individuals or small businesses is DOA, but the handful of trillion-dollar companies that run 95% of the market, much more palatable. Any politician wants to say they stuck it to meta, twitter, and amazon, and not their voters. Am I missing something?
Second, I think we're working with different concepts of how slop occurs and is produced. The slop you have in your head is probably just the egregious and harmful type, but anytime you're replacing cognitive or creative work, something that could be said to be done nearly every time "artificial" intelligence is leveraged, you in some part "slop". The idea here is that AI very quickly reduces the funding pool for all kinds of cultural infrastructure, not least education. So for anyone who wants aspects of that to be economically and culturally preserved, this is a broad re-alignment of the responsibilities of the massive for profit concerns that openly steal our IP and cognitive labor.
Got it. So you are arguing against AI use in general, not just slop. And this piece is really about transferring resources from AI companies to media, not taxing slop. Why not just be upfront about that? "The Case For Sticking it to Meta, Twitter, and Amazon" would be a fine title.
Seeing some of these plans being worked up for taxation on immense wealth is…weirdly heartwarming? I suppose that says more about our society today than anything else haha. It’s reminiscent to me of Bernie & Ro Khanna’s billionaire tax plan.
Even if we’re at a point where these things cannot immediately (or possibly ever) come to fruition, at least we’re doing SOMETHING. It’s opening the eyes of more people. The wealth that billionaires and their companies accumulate is unfathomably massive and could create the infrastructure of the new world if we make it…
The mold analogy was fascinating! I had never heard that before and I will definitely be recycling that one.
Spread evenly accross every person who is striving and failing to generate an income as a cultural creative, the tax on AI slop would likely not have any effect on the viability of that career pursuit. For the distribution to have meaningful effects in the lives of the recipients, some selection criteria would need to applied. The question then becomes, who controls that selection process? Whose ideology is enshrined as being worthy of taxpayer support? What opinions, even secretly held or unconsciously held but ferreted out by witch hunters, would be grounds for revoking the cultural creative stipend?
Could we not say this about any social safety net policy, though?
Besides, I believe the intention of incorporating the lil vignette about grants was to cater the idea towards that sort of pooling of the financial resources. That is, people will then apply for grants and access to the support. And yes, there will need to be more nuance to that, some regulations and whatnot, but this is such a newborn issue (and short argument for the taxation system itself) that it makes sense we do not yet have all the answers.
I imagine there would have to be income limits for applicants, perhaps calculated with some of the same equations we use currently (I.e., how many dependents do you have)! And there must be attention to if it is an individual or a business. I am no economist or accountant or anything related to strictly numbers for that matter, but I imagine that in putting our noggins together, we can answer your questions and make a plan. It’s what humans do!
Good idea! I believe the arts provide the cultural infrastructure necessary to make good choices about AI. The technology appeared so quickly and is so powerful that individuals (and the culture, not to mention the economy) just weren’t ready.
There is evidence of “trickle down” and benefits for wide range of people.
- Already AI seems to make high skill jobs more accessible to lower skilled people https://x.com/althofflukas/status/2032514041688756647?s=46&t=m0T2Z2OgF7kGyHXaN5GEBA
- Anxiety and depression symptoms improve 35% and 30%, even meta analysis broadly shows positive effects. https://theexistentialhope.substack.com/p/the-optimism-gap-thats-shaping-ai
You mentioned that a fictional arts program gets cut for a tax concession for a data center. This wouldn’t happen. Tax concessions are tax discounts to attract data centers to come. Even though there’s a large tax concession, the total tax received is higher than if the data center wasn’t there. It’s not a revenue stream that was there but disappeared. Also a tax concession at the state level of usually to help big tax revenues at the city level. The way that data center funding is reported on has been really imbalanced to the point of inaccuracy by lack of context.
All that being said, a 1% tax seems great. Though might be better on something like UBI or Elle’s employee owned business structures which can help with inequality. More writers sounds great but another way to achieve that is more distributed wealth so more people can take on precarious and highly competitive careers like cultural creation. Broader recipients for this tax would also make it more equitable and politically viable.
Skeptical going in, but I really kind of like this idea. And I'm a frequent and happy user of AI in my work and personal life. But the intellectual thievery and deluge of slop seems to demand a measured response and this modest tax might be a benefit to us all. How do we start this?
A great idea, but unfortunately the politicians who could push through something like this are controlled by those billionaires, so it would be shocking if it even got to consideration.
If “slop” is a negative externality, why not tax AI users instead, like a plastic bag tax at the grocery store, rather than a general revenue tax on AI companies? I’ve also never heard of a data center reducing local tax revenues.
Putting the responsibility at the consumer level is exactly the problem with most anti-pollution fixes - the idea that we have to recycle while plastics companies are free to make the crap at profit. This places the culpability with the massively profitable purveyors of AI slop. Also, why would it be "better" to pass the costs to individual consumers? I'm confused about where this political instinct is coming from?
Well, I see taxes as methods of fixing social problems, not tools for punishing certain groups arbitrarily.
Ok. I suppose I don't think this is either 1.) a punishment and 2.) and even if it is, it's certainly not arbitrary!
In that case, the problem is that your proposal doesn't tax slop. It's just a general tax hike on big AI companies. It could even make slop marginally worse if AI companies respond by reducing R&D. And even if some do respond by raising prices, why wouldn't the actual slop producers (a subset of users) just switch to cheaper competitors?
First, I think the prospect of selling this politically as something that hits individuals or small businesses is DOA, but the handful of trillion-dollar companies that run 95% of the market, much more palatable. Any politician wants to say they stuck it to meta, twitter, and amazon, and not their voters. Am I missing something?
Second, I think we're working with different concepts of how slop occurs and is produced. The slop you have in your head is probably just the egregious and harmful type, but anytime you're replacing cognitive or creative work, something that could be said to be done nearly every time "artificial" intelligence is leveraged, you in some part "slop". The idea here is that AI very quickly reduces the funding pool for all kinds of cultural infrastructure, not least education. So for anyone who wants aspects of that to be economically and culturally preserved, this is a broad re-alignment of the responsibilities of the massive for profit concerns that openly steal our IP and cognitive labor.
Got it. So you are arguing against AI use in general, not just slop. And this piece is really about transferring resources from AI companies to media, not taxing slop. Why not just be upfront about that? "The Case For Sticking it to Meta, Twitter, and Amazon" would be a fine title.
Oh hold on. I see you're affiliated with the Cato Institute. This explains a lot! :-)
Fully support this
I fully support this simple yet powerful way to help those who are hurt by AI.
Seeing some of these plans being worked up for taxation on immense wealth is…weirdly heartwarming? I suppose that says more about our society today than anything else haha. It’s reminiscent to me of Bernie & Ro Khanna’s billionaire tax plan.
Even if we’re at a point where these things cannot immediately (or possibly ever) come to fruition, at least we’re doing SOMETHING. It’s opening the eyes of more people. The wealth that billionaires and their companies accumulate is unfathomably massive and could create the infrastructure of the new world if we make it…
The mold analogy was fascinating! I had never heard that before and I will definitely be recycling that one.
A nice, short insightful article!
Spread evenly accross every person who is striving and failing to generate an income as a cultural creative, the tax on AI slop would likely not have any effect on the viability of that career pursuit. For the distribution to have meaningful effects in the lives of the recipients, some selection criteria would need to applied. The question then becomes, who controls that selection process? Whose ideology is enshrined as being worthy of taxpayer support? What opinions, even secretly held or unconsciously held but ferreted out by witch hunters, would be grounds for revoking the cultural creative stipend?
Could we not say this about any social safety net policy, though?
Besides, I believe the intention of incorporating the lil vignette about grants was to cater the idea towards that sort of pooling of the financial resources. That is, people will then apply for grants and access to the support. And yes, there will need to be more nuance to that, some regulations and whatnot, but this is such a newborn issue (and short argument for the taxation system itself) that it makes sense we do not yet have all the answers.
I imagine there would have to be income limits for applicants, perhaps calculated with some of the same equations we use currently (I.e., how many dependents do you have)! And there must be attention to if it is an individual or a business. I am no economist or accountant or anything related to strictly numbers for that matter, but I imagine that in putting our noggins together, we can answer your questions and make a plan. It’s what humans do!