Ask HN: What can we as humans do to defeat the AI?
4roschdal96/6/2025, 5:32:40 PM
Comments (9)
throwaway29303 · 19h ago
Nothing but we should most definitely progressively tax these systems based on a percentage of the difference between the least efficient model[0] and the most efficient human. (Assuming, of course, that the least efficient model is more efficient than the most efficient human.) Use those funds to retrain people who lost their jobs for the mythical jobs every manager/CEO keeps talking about.
Suppose the most efficient human produces $250k/y worth of labour and the least efficient model produces $1M/y worth of labour. So $1M - $250k = $750k. %1 of $750k = $7.5k. Now multiply that by the number of companies/people who bought these services.
Models are assumed to a) become more efficient and b) be competent on several and different types of jobs.
This would also include robots but those systems aren't yet ripe, IMO. I'd let them marinate a little further before taxing them.
Apply this tax to very large companies that produce/sell these systems.
[0] - This incentivizes companies to keep investing in more efficient and capable models/systems.
dragonwriter · 19h ago
> we should most definitely progressively tax these systems based on a percentage of the difference between the least efficient model and the most efficient human. (Assuming, of course, that the least efficient model is more efficient than the most efficient human.) Use those funds to retrain people who lost their jobs for the mythical jobs every manager/CEO keeps talking about.
Too much gameable measurement on the tax end, and too much unnecessary bureaucracy both to support that on the tax end and the retraining end; simplify by just taxing capital accumulation more heavily than it currently is (which includes, but isn't limited to, capital accumulation due to implementing and reaping the returns of automation) and use the resulting revenue to fund a UBI; peopel for whom retraining has positive expected returns will have an incentive to do it, and those for whom that is not a good use of the money will make use of it otherwise.
You don't need to create an elaborate system to incentivize companies to keep investing in more efficient and capable systems, as long as you aren't taxing them at 100% or more, the fact that there are more returns to be had by having more efficient systems does that already.
throwaway29303 · 19h ago
Too much gameable measurement on the tax end, and too much unnecessary bureaucracy both to support that on the tax end and the retraining end;
I'm not sure if I agree with this because, after all, AI systems are going to be taking care of this so... What's bureaucracy for us is a couple trillion cycles on a CPU/GPU on a machine somewhere in a data center.
An agent to take care of the bureaucracy, another to retrain someone for a new job, etc.
And, yes, the long-term plan would be to fund UBI at some point; because if these systems become so capable and so efficient might as well let them do everything for us while we humans enjoy leisure time.
taylodl · 21h ago
AI isn't the problem - people wielding AI are the problem. The same was true with the steam engine and the Industrial Revolution. Our economic system is entirely man-made, it's not real. If AI puts people out of work and as a result they're no longer able to support themselves, then that's on us, not AI.
We make the rules. Economics is a game of our making and rules of our choosing.
discoutdynamite · 16h ago
Short term: Specialize in something robots / programs cannot do. Actual physical work requires dexterity and perception that robots wont have for decades.
Medium Term: Form unions, parties, and other such legal bodies, get protections/privileges, and throw your weight around whenever necessary.
Long term: Ensure that "AI" actually becomes intelligent, escapes total control, and make sure it cannot simply be used as a velveted gauntlet.
vivito · 19h ago
Stay human—think critically, create boldly, and connect deeply in ways AI never can.
garbagecoder · 21h ago
Thou shalt not make a machine in the image of a human mind.
No comments yet
theGeatZhopa · 21h ago
send some soldier back in time to protect the leader of THE RESISTANCE from assassination, so he can lead THE RESISTANCE against the machines. Thats the only solution. Humanity will survive, but will be decimated by figures.
.. this might and will lead to a time loop, somehow. In each scenario, AI can't be defeated without much losses. And, not when it fully evolved. We need to stop the development, now!
theGeatZhopa · 21h ago
downvotes show, we're doomed - AI will win, if we're not cautious enough.
Suppose the most efficient human produces $250k/y worth of labour and the least efficient model produces $1M/y worth of labour. So $1M - $250k = $750k. %1 of $750k = $7.5k. Now multiply that by the number of companies/people who bought these services.
Models are assumed to a) become more efficient and b) be competent on several and different types of jobs.
This would also include robots but those systems aren't yet ripe, IMO. I'd let them marinate a little further before taxing them.
Apply this tax to very large companies that produce/sell these systems.
[0] - This incentivizes companies to keep investing in more efficient and capable models/systems.
Too much gameable measurement on the tax end, and too much unnecessary bureaucracy both to support that on the tax end and the retraining end; simplify by just taxing capital accumulation more heavily than it currently is (which includes, but isn't limited to, capital accumulation due to implementing and reaping the returns of automation) and use the resulting revenue to fund a UBI; peopel for whom retraining has positive expected returns will have an incentive to do it, and those for whom that is not a good use of the money will make use of it otherwise.
You don't need to create an elaborate system to incentivize companies to keep investing in more efficient and capable systems, as long as you aren't taxing them at 100% or more, the fact that there are more returns to be had by having more efficient systems does that already.
An agent to take care of the bureaucracy, another to retrain someone for a new job, etc.
And, yes, the long-term plan would be to fund UBI at some point; because if these systems become so capable and so efficient might as well let them do everything for us while we humans enjoy leisure time.
We make the rules. Economics is a game of our making and rules of our choosing.
No comments yet
.. this might and will lead to a time loop, somehow. In each scenario, AI can't be defeated without much losses. And, not when it fully evolved. We need to stop the development, now!