this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
476 points (96.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54539 readers
534 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.intai.tech/post/43759

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/949452

OpenAI's ChatGPT and Sam Altman are in massive trouble. OpenAI is getting sued in the US for illegally using content from the internet to train their LLM or large language models

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RatzChatsubo@vlemmy.net 96 points 1 year ago (37 children)

So we can sue robots but when I ask if we can tax them, and reduce human working hours, I'm the crazy one?

[–] slipperydippery@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (10 children)

What would you tax exactly? Robots don't earn an income and don't inherently make a profit. You could tax a company or owner who profits off of robots and/or sells their labor.

[–] RatzChatsubo@vlemmy.net 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

It would have to be some sort of moderated labor cost saving tax kind of thing enforced by the government

[–] PlebsicleMcGee@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we think of production as costing land, labour and capital, then more efficient methods of production would likely swap labour for capital. In that case then we just tax capital growth like we're doing now (Only properly, like without the loopholes). No need to complicate it past that

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)