111–120 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you, or did you not, use any AI or LLMs in the process of writing this article?
Who cares? A lot of people with disabilities are also using LLMs to level the playing field and to compete with non-disabled people. Are you going to be the person who tells them they need to stay out, stop using this technology, and stay in their "place"?
The author acts as if taxes are not a completely fluid system, that will quickly adept to ensure revenue keeps flowing, squeezing wherever the squeezing is the juiciest. It does not need cautious calibration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Payroll taxes are the worst for small companies followed by strong labor law. Strong Labor laws are good if the company has 500-1000+ people but not able to fire someone within the month with reason is just dumb (I’m looking at Europe). It indeed causes many startups to hire 50% less people than they can. I honestly don’t understand taxing anyone making less than something like 500K. Don’t tax anyone earns less than…
Not taxing anyone under 500k would remove a very large share of tax revenue. Combining that with higher corporate taxes would be nice, but if it got pushed too high (which it would in this scenario) we would simply see corporate flight from the US to elsewhere or it would eliminate practically all the benefit of lower taxes from the less wealthy as the cost of goods would skyrocket. There isn't really a silver bullet…
Good. If they don't want to pay for the physical and legal infrastructure to make their business possible here, then they can go elsewhere. I'm so tired of this cowardly excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds evasive. I share the parent's view that the article appears to be largely LLM-written. Given that you cite "your AI assistant", I'm guessing you did lean on an LLM here, perhaps without realizing that it imparted a very distinctive tone. And honestly, it just cracks me up that it's usually the authors writing about AI lean on the tech. Including the critics...
Busted. I am a human-in-the-loop. I think everybody should use LLMs to polish their language. This topic is important to me and I want to communicate as effectively as possible. I stand by every character of the article regardless of which fancy autocomplete I used to polish it. I use spellcheck, too, and a digital tuner for my guitar. Just want to reiterate: https://alec.is/posts/ai-employees-dont-pay-taxes/#:~:text…
Finally, I will link this, about how "it's insulting to read your AI generated article:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069
I think it's perfectly reasonable to change the tax system to make sure there's no tax advantage to substituting capital for labor, or for that matter, labor for capital. I have no idea what changes would be needed, but there's no reason that using AI should have significant tax implications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sales taxes are regressive and nonsensical, why punish people because they contribute to the economy by buying stuff? Just do income tax.
I don't disagree with the first part, but income tax falls into the exact same logic of "why punish people because they contribute to the economy by [working]?"
Apart from being all AI-written: > Reality: It’s not fear; it’s math. If 30% of the workforce is displaced, and the remaining 70% have to pay for the social safety net (or UBI) required to keep the displaced alive, the math breaks. The argument being given simply avoids the question of where the economy itself is in all this. The workers pay taxes, the taxes pay for infrastructure, sure. But the workers aren't doing…
It's always hilarious to see lazy, innumerate people claiming that "it’s math" when in reality they just made up numbers and didn't do any calculations.
Apart from being all AI-written: > Reality: It’s not fear; it’s math. If 30% of the workforce is displaced, and the remaining 70% have to pay for the social safety net (or UBI) required to keep the displaced alive, the math breaks. The argument being given simply avoids the question of where the economy itself is in all this. The workers pay taxes, the taxes pay for infrastructure, sure. But the workers aren't doing…
> Apart from being all AI-written I think nearly 100% of blog posts are run through an LLM now. The author was lazy and went with the default LLM "tone" and so the typical LLM grammar usage and turns of phrase are too readily apparent. It's really disheartening as I read blogs to get a perspective on what another human thinks and how their thought process works. If I wanted to chat with a LLM, I can open a new tab.
Apart from being all AI-written: > Reality: It’s not fear; it’s math. If 30% of the workforce is displaced, and the remaining 70% have to pay for the social safety net (or UBI) required to keep the displaced alive, the math breaks. The argument being given simply avoids the question of where the economy itself is in all this. The workers pay taxes, the taxes pay for infrastructure, sure. But the workers aren't doing…
> the logical conclusion is "no economy at all" Marx called it 150 years ago. Its happening precisely how it said it would.
Is pure communism the right answer? Of course not. But mixing elements would avoid the worst of capitalism and communism.
> Reality: It’s not fear; it’s math. If 30% of the workforce is displaced, and the remaining 70% have to pay for the social safety net (or UBI) required to keep the displaced alive, the math breaks. What evidence does the author have that 30% of the workforce will be displaced (not to mention unable to find another job)? The author also doesn't seem to take into account that AI is also making new jobs: https://www.ec…
Do these companies seriously not see a MASSIVE AI tax coming? Gov't wants its money, doesn't matter if its clean or not, as long as it gets its cut.