havaianaslife

Make some sort of sense to me to think about it, but tbh we already pay vat on tokens and also on machinery (robots), home appliances etc. Also its something payed on possession and not use, i can use it for different things other than make profit out of it. I think it's not the correct way or at least, not the correct time to do something like that, we must see how it evolves before doing something so bold. Also taxing is a difficult matter because is different in countries, region, etc.

Already AI leading companies have problems finding how to back the enormous debt they are in. I don't think it's useful to somebody to act in a preemptive way on this topic.

First we must have the problems, only then we must solve them, like in the past five hundred years at least.

What should be done today is to make sure everyone benefit, at every latitude, and also to use it to improve security and productivity in every field. Make sure that all this debt and bubble-like aura around AI will deflate smoothly without major crisis.

The unemployment will be self-regulated after that. Like usual. Somebody will suffer in the meantime, hopefully a very small portion, okay, but nothing our society (and not only the american one) have already overcome in the past. History is beautiful only in retrospect.

But we, and our respective countries, can make this transition less painful than before, because we are much more free and connected and with better education and tools (also AI). So if something become a problem we have better instrument to adapt society to it and to protest, together, if the price to pay in term of standards of living its too high for a significant amount of people.

I think the important things to achieve in the short term are: * access to AI must be a universal right in some degree and at a reasonable price, like access to internet is today * country and community should push to decentralize power over models, data-centers location and invest in open models and open RD

The one thing about this article correct is human reserve, we must have human quota in every business or activity.

But to slow down it's not a good idea for me in general and in particular using taxes.

we all have a choice to use or not and the depending of the context we live in there could be more or less benefits overall (metro city vs bucolic small European village). But what this article capture for me is something more philosophic, anthropologically as Aristotle told us we are social animal, and for about at least the past 5k years we benefited a lot as a group by contamination, etc.. now we live in more bubbles, bubbles are more diffused than previously and we must at least acknowledge what we are missing in the process. It's the same difference between old generalist medias, tv shows, books culture, and the more different possibilities and bubbles we live (more importantly grow, sometimes without touching the "local" "proverbial" grass). It's interesting to observe a social phenomenon that is mostly recent:

+ walkman 80s but diffused as today the Bluetooth headset only years later but not comparable

+ mp3 player 2000s not comparable as capabilities and more of a young adopt early technology

+ smartphones 2010s mass adoption but at least you hear mostly people around you.

+ air pods 10y ago on September -> in 10 years are adopted more than any of the previous tech. Adoption rate is hug (i consider also other brands)

and to be honest there is another topic correlated -> most young people have lived the covid pandemic and interiorizited some behavior

also grown up in some white collar sector live with headset after the pandemic, cause of smartwarking but also the more diffused use of team/zoom/meet in the workplace

now there is also ai (and it's a matter of time we will want a constant access to it that can also be headset related) and smart glasses are near than ever.

there could be consequences in less than 10y.

It's a social science matter nobody taking seriously.

Hope this doesn't become a trend 'cause it can become very problematic. Lots of newbies could replicate and this can produce waste of tokens as a first issue. Also this creates additional problems, for example binding something new to a single AI vendor or tool (and also to an unpredictable model behind other than some pay subscription) is conceptually wrong.

Nothing against AI obv, but we must start to address the use and abuse of it. Some sorts of patterns in the usage, having a documentation or a readme as in this case is ugly and should be catalog under "anti-pattern".

This is just an example, in a WIP project and okays, it's not a sin.

But maybe we should start addressing, backed by big players an in big proportion by no profit foundation and academic (public and private) institutions, the problem of:

How to use AI, what kind of things is useful doing with it and what not, how to evaluate that, in what stages of things can one have space to misuse this tool and in what not.

This not much as a mandatory thing, but as a starting point for everyone approaching the use of AI as a building tool. A guideline. A market standard. So that anybody can address at moment 0 landing on a repo, if it's compliant with some standard or not. Because have in mind, as a compass, what somebody investing some effort put into this field.

Could be argued that common sense already addresses this very efficiently and that it's a matter of iteration and we all as a whole can build this common sense on ai use, but I think that having some credible org write it in a easy, accessible, verifiable, and used is a milestone toward it. And can accelerate the process with a small effort. Also can affect directly the various AI tools.

Best practices, and concept, must be shared and easy to be access by everyone, as always have been in this field.