The European Parliament recently released a working group report on robots that’s cause for concern for some people and raises ethical financial questions for others.
One of those questions is whether robots that supplant people in specific jobs should pay taxes. Another is if robots that are responsible for forcing people out of jobs should be financially obligated to those people.
These are valid questions that may have to start being answered in the near future as devices become smarter and more capable of taking over tasks routinely performed by human workers today.
“Can a robot express intention? I think the answer is very simple when it comes to noncomplex algorithms, but when it gets more complex, I think we have a problem,” stated Pawel Kwiatkowski from the Gessel law firm at a European hearing on the issue in April.
The report that was issued states that as robots get more intelligent, they’ll need to follow a robotic code established by science fiction author Isaac Asimov — that robots must never hurt humans and must always obey their orders.
The report further recommends that robots should be registered with the authorities and that contacts between robots and humans should be regulated. It says that special emphasis should be “given to human safety, privacy, integrity, dignity and autonomy.”
In terms of dignity, having a decent annual income should be the right of humans no matter how many robots are ultimately produced or are in use. If necessary, the Parliament report recommends establishing a basic annual income for people that’s paid regardless of whether they work.
Such a program was also proposed in a social referendum in Switzerland this year and was rejected, but small pilot programs in communities elsewhere, such as the Netherlands and Brazil, are trying it out.
As robots become more commonplace, it will become increasingly likely that workers will have their hours reduced or even be subject to having jobs eliminated entirely.
The recommendations in the European Parliament’s report state that the owners of robots should indeed pay taxes and/or pitch in to social security programs in cases where they’re replacing humans in great numbers.
The parliamentary working group believes that robots “seem poised to unleash a new industrial revolution” in the near future.
“Within the space of a few decades [artificial intelligence] could surpass human intellectual capacity in a manner which, if not prepared for, could pose a challenge to humanity’s capacity to control its own creation and … the survival of the species,” the report’s authors write.
These are heady questions which must be actively debated in academic and government circles in the coming years as new robotic technology and machines get more advanced. The European Parliament hopes to have its working group on the subject in place for at least a year, working closely with experts in the field.
The days of human-like “androids” are still in the future; for now, industrial robots, surgical robots, drones and soon, self-guided cars, will be more actively studied. But eventually, the working group wants to examine not just technical parameters and speeds of devices, but their intelligence.
The more intelligent the machines are, the more they’ll be capable of supplanting humans in jobs that require decision-making and original thinking. The more of them that are produced, the lower their cost will be, and hence, the greater the viability of replacing humans in jobs.
Some experts are saying that as robotics costs decrease, many jobs will be eliminated, but some will be created, as people will be needed to install, update and maintain the machines. In fact, a whole new industry may come into being, complete with benefits, job security and unions.
One might even argue that the robots could have unions, too, one day.
A larger question may be the interaction of the machines with humans. As the two come closer into contact, issues of liability need to be addressed, as the potential for accidents may increase, at least in the early stages.
Safety standards and industry regulations will need to be drafted, and manufacturers may need to be held liable for injuries or harm caused by the machines.
In the end, there are only so many hypotheticals that can be explored theoretically. As a society, we may have to gain hands-on experience with intelligent devices before we can decide whether they’re truly worthy of replacing humans.
The payment of taxes might be one step that could gain the machines traction with the functionaries of power in government and perhaps win them at least some sympathy from the workers they replace. It will be interesting to see what other recommendations the European Parliament’s working group establishes as discussion around this topic has just begun.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
