A new general technology will emerge if it creates a collective extreme and before the dust clears, someone announces the end of work. I went with canvases, I went with electricity, I went with the personal computer, and I went with the Internet. We have raised our own means of communication by predicting the end of our profession with every technological development. So a novelty that connects with artificial intelligence is not a shortcut to the destruction of the workforce, until it there are many voices who wish to enact it before it is reviewed.
The current debate about artificial intelligence and especially about its name impuesto los robotshas a certain accelerated anachronism. We do not react to the observed change until the expected change occurs. Economic policy, especially in systematic form, must be organized around a technological counterfactual, based only on promises and expectations that need to be demonstrated.
El paper de Orly Mazur is based on this intuition. If we cross the data bar, less than 5% of companies currently use artificial intelligence in manufacturing in tangible form. Including the terrain where adoption appears most obvious, in individual use, only 27% of workers report using AI generative herbs in their work.
But use does not mean exchange. Most current reports complement existing fields, from customer care to documentary analysis, but completely complement the work of one more professional. That’s it the difference between the technically possible and the economically viable appears here as a major heresy against the dominant narrative. So much so that only less than 23% of compensation associated with tareas expuestas to artificial vision is advantageous to automate with current technology and costs.
We can conclude, at least with the spare parts available today, which Absolute automation is not a technological limit, but an economic one. And this completely changes the regulatory framework, because the inevitable replacement of humans by robots actually conditions business decisions on pricing, integration and the return of inversion.
However, the public conversation in some circles of self-described “civil society” is progressing as the replacement has once been consumed.
The political argument that justifies crime against AI is usually twofold. First, massive personnel destruction. Second, the erosion of the fiscal base of labor. Both are troubled by the idea of a quick and general replacement. However, empirical evidence does not support these arguments. And part of the most ambitious characters, The International Monetary Fund estimates that around 40% of the world’s workforce is exposed to the influence of artificial intelligence.
By no means does it mean destroyed, there is nothing left of it. Studies listed on the page paper understand that the work impact is mainly due to the reorganization of areas and no displacement of empty spaces, except for massive waste. This is the old Patronage of Universal Technologies: change the content of the work before changing the volume of the item.
With everything before there is no evidence of a significant erosion of the tax base due to automation. Business participation in the payment remains relatively stable, so its AI promises to improve fraud detection and automated auditing. How well we know all the things we give to the Hacienda, The tax system is more resilient than the discourse around it.
Let’s go back to the beginning of this column, the new era of the present time is a political storm that causes a revolution. Historically, the sequence was simple. First, the economy changed. Then the policy should adapt. Empire, now the sequence is sent: first we imagine the impact; next we draw the answer and finally we hope to confirm whether the hypothesis comes true.
Economics thus enters a different epistemological phase. It is not the present that rules, but the possibility of the future. I wanted to insist on the need to reckon with the promise of artificial intelligence. A problem for robots does not correspond to an observable phenomenon, to a plausible scenario. It is a preventive economic policy based on technological models; a kind of ontological risk planning.
Using technology before creating the effect it is supposed to correct means to transform politics into a tool of narrative anticipation. The promise of reward is penalized. Y, as recuerda el paperit can deflect trends, slow down useful innovation, and include legal categories that become obsolete before deployment.
I say it differently We propose the fiscal architecture of a hypothetical economy. We have never before attempted to build a product transformation tax system based on product demos and product roadmaps. No need to worry about industrial machines if the machines were encumbered by weapon swaps: the subsequently generated rent was encumbered.
None of this is to say that AI won’t change profession, desire or taxation. It means that no one has ever reached a scale that would justify a particular structural response. Therefore, we need to implement a security strategy: management, institutional adaptation and continuous monitoring; fiscal reforms only if there is a disruption.
So the real transformation wasn’t in the technology until our political relationship with it. AI ushers in an economy in which promise induces regulatory effects over productive effects. Politics must be reactive to change perspective, and if it does, it risks legislating through the shadows.
Leave a Reply