Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI EU Robotics Government News Science Technology

Europe's Robots To Become 'Electronic Persons' Under Draft Plan (yahoo.com) 262

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Yahoo News: Under the European Union's new draft plan, Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons," with their owners liable to paying social security for them. Robots are only becoming more prevalent in the workplace. They're already taking on tasks such as personal care or surgery, and their population is only expected to rise as their abilities are expanded with the increased development of new technologies. A draft European Parliament motion suggests that their growing intelligence, pervasiveness and autonomy requires rethinking everything from taxation to legal liability. The draft motion called on the European Commission to consider "that at least the most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations." It also suggested the creation of a register for smart autonomous robots, which would link each one to funds established to cover its legal liabilities. Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA's robotic and automation department, said: "That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons -- that's something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years. We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics," he told reporters. The report added that the robotics and artificial intelligence may result in a large part of the work now done by humans being taken over by robots, raising concerns about the future of employment and the viability of social security systems. The draft motion also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Europe's Robots To Become 'Electronic Persons' Under Draft Plan

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @05:47PM (#52370169)

    Get out while you can. Even if all the dire predictions of the results are true, it's going to get even worse if you stay.

    • As it says in the article;

      The motion faces an uphill battle to win backing from the various political blocks in European Parliament. Even if it did get enough support to pass, it would be a non-binding resolution as the Parliament lacks the authority to propose legislation.

      I'm sure 'daft' motions get proposed in other legislatures. They certainly do in the UK parliament. What they don't do is automatically become law.

      Also from the article;

      Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA's robotic and automation department, said: "That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons - that's something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years."

      "We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics," he told reporters at the Automatica robotics trade fair in Munich, while acknowledging that a legal framework for self-driving cars would be needed soon.

      So maybe premature, rather than completely daft.

      • So maybe premature, rather than completely daft.

        Considering the subject of who is to be held liable for when an autonomous car causes a crash is an oft recurring subject here on Slashdot and partly autonomous cars are already in use today, I'd say that it's not premature at all.

        Everybody is kneejerking about the 'persons' and 'rights and obligations' part, but from what I can find the term 'person' refers to the concept of a 'legal person' or 'legal entity'. Considering nobody is losing their shit about companies being regarded as 'legal entities' and ha

    • Ah, if this is the thread for non-sequiturs, can I just say that Trump is a pig, and Clinton is evil? Thank you for your attention.

  • Not sure if Onion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @05:48PM (#52370175)

    Is it April the first already?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this? What if they are naturally libertarian, and prefer a dog-eat-dot meritocratic system of governance where the weak perish and only the strong survive?

    • Robot Politicians (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:06PM (#52370665) Journal

      But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this?

      Well if they are classed as persons then they presumably get to vote as well and can elect right wing robot politicians....and before you say that will never happen we used to have one here in Canada called Stephen Harper [imgur.com].

    • What if they are naturally libertarian, and prefer a dog-eat-dot meritocratic system of governance where the weak perish and only the strong survive?

      Oh don't worry, robots are much more rational than humans, so there's no chance of that.

  • If you don't want to pay some more...http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beatles/taxman.html
  • Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @05:53PM (#52370219)

    It appears that european leaders now have discovered that robots don't pay income taxes and want to fix it. Well, that's right, but right now robots are a very good way you can avoid having to resort to do your production in china or something, because robots are as cheap in europe as they are in china. Well, good that the EU is changing it, as then the robot fabs will be built in china as well! Good job EU!

    • Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:05PM (#52370661)
      This is the future though. Do you seriously expect to shift your productivity source from humans to machines and not be taxed? Because that's what the entire concept is - taking a share of the productive output of the nation, and using it for things that are deemed to be in the public good. We can argue what the rate should be, or what it should be spent on, but that's pretty much how it works. And this is exactly what governments are going to have to do.

      Now, maybe it's sort of silly to try and define a robot as a 'person', and it makes more sense to treat them as a durable investment good, with taxes on things like profits or capital gains, but the end result is generally the same.

      And once the taxes from robotic production are high enough, they can just switch to providing a minimum basic income for the humans, so there's still enough demand/money to buy the goods the robots produce, and the labor markets don't just implode from scarcity.
      • We do not tax drills in this way or generators or bull dozers... more advanced tools have always allowed the same work with fewer workers needing to be paid.
        • Sure we do [nolo.com] - at least here in the US. Not sure about the EU. Unlike your personal property, nearly all business property (essentially anything used to conduct business) is taxed based on its appraised value. Why do you think businesses care so much about depreciation schedules, etc?

          Note: I'm not defending this plan - just pointing out that bulldozers and drills *are* actually taxed.

          • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

            Your parent post didn't say that we don't tax personal property. He said that we don't tax personal property "in this way", meaning a social security tax. Being taxed because you own the property is different than being taxed because the property does the work once performed by a human.

        • In the past, advanced tools have always required direct operators. They served to make a human worker more efficient. By using a power drill, I can drill holes a lot faster and for longer than I can using a hand operated one. But set the drill on the workbench, and it gathers dust. At some point though, we start introducing machines so advanced that they don't need that operator anymore. Sure, there needs to be someone supervising them, but that person already existed - he/she is just supervising machines n
          • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

            At some point though, we start introducing machines so advanced that they don't need that operator anymore. Sure, there needs to be someone supervising them, but that person already existed - he/she is just supervising machines now instead of people. You're not adding efficiency so much as you're just replacing labor.

            It reminds me of the scenes in the 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. In the movie Charlie's dad's job as the was eliminated at the toothpaste factory where he twisted on the c

      • by khallow ( 566160 )

        This is the future though.

        It's probably just as old as humanity to double down on something that isn't working on the theory that you aren't trying hard enough.

        Do you seriously expect to shift your productivity source from humans to machines and not be taxed? Because that's what the entire concept is - taking a share of the productive output of the nation, and using it for things that are deemed to be in the public good. We can argue what the rate should be, or what it should be spent on, but that's pretty much how it works. And this is exactly what governments are going to have to do.

        What do you think will happen when you punish and tax productivity and employment? This will just increase the attractiveness of moving production to places that won't heavily parasitize the output for some dubious theory of public good.

        And once the taxes from robotic production are high enough, they can just switch to providing a minimum basic income for the humans, so there's still enough demand/money to buy the goods the robots produce, and the labor markets don't just implode from scarcity.

        This seems to me the endgame of all this mess. A bunch of people starving on some grossly inadequate basic income while the rest of the world

        • What do you think will happen when you punish and tax productivity and employment? This will just increase the attractiveness of moving production to places that won't heavily parasitize the output for some dubious theory of public good.

          As I said, we can debate the rates and such, but to argue that it ought to be zero is like arguing that businesses should charge nothing for their services. Even within the US, people (even rich ones) still sometimes choose to live in higher tax localities. Why is that? Possibly because the location itself is desirable for a variety of reasons. Sure, there's a point at which taxes get so high that people say "F- it, I'm moving", but that doesn't imply that any level of taxation is terrible, or that there is

      • by thomst ( 1640045 )
        Posting to undo mistaken moderation. Thanks, Gyration AirMouse!
    • It appears that it's a draft plan to cover a corner case and it ended up looking silly.
      See also the draft plans the Pentagon has for invading the UK.
      If you try to have plans for everything, such in this case A.I. advancing at a massive rate, then some of those plans are going to look more than a little crazy.

      Maybe look at this another way - all of those "singularity" types and those ones that think human scale artificial intelligence is just around the corner should be flattered that somebody is taken them
  • by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:00PM (#52370259) Homepage

    Is a bulldozer a robot? What about an autonomous bulldozer? How many people did it replace? A bulldozer can do the work of 100 men with shovels but a much much smaller number of men if they also have a bulldozer. The only thing this would do would have companies skirting the law by redefining or crippling their products: That computer that fill drinks isn't a robot. That computer that folds clothes isn't a robot because it's been crippled to only fold clothes. etc. etc.
    Humanoid robots are likely always going to be a novelty. For most tasks, a non-humanoid version works better. Even for a general purpose robot, the humanoid form is probably not optimal.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      The obvious problem being "solved" is how to treat AI slaves. An industrial robot isn't the concern. They have been used for about 100 years (the moving assembly line being one of the earlier industrial robots, but the cotton gin being even earlier than that. Nobody is considering these as applying to the robots used in car manufacturing, but were drafted as being related to the ASMIO type machines. The AI-like "cute" robots.

      Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are delibe
      • The obvious problem being "solved" is how to treat AI slaves. An industrial robot isn't the concern. They have been used for about 100 years (the moving assembly line being one of the earlier industrial robots, but the cotton gin being even earlier than that. Nobody is considering these as applying to the robots used in car manufacturing, but were drafted as being related to the ASMIO type machines. The AI-like "cute" robots.

        Those applying it to single-task robots, even with AI-like features are deliberately being obtuse. The AI researchers do so much to over-state their success, that it's natural to start protecting AI. AI is no dumber than an octopus, so if we have laws protecting an octopus, so why not an AI?

        It's not as simple as "sentient autonomous humanoid robot" versus "single-task industrial" robot. There is no reason that even a fully sentient robot will even have to have a body. It definitely doesn't have to be mobile. Likely those industrial robots will continue to get smarter and smarter until they cross over at some point. They won't have legs to move around or even audio to communicate but they can still perform tasks with humanlike intelligence.

    • This is yet another "draft" proposal that will never go anywhere. Mostly pushing the Basic Income agenda that has been rejected everywhere it's been proposed.
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Humanoid robots are likely always going to be a novelty

      I used to think that but there is a lot of stuff built for the human form factor so instead of a redesign from scratch it may make sense to have something human sized or shaped to work with it. Even "Robbie the Robot" is humanoid compared with a welding robot.
      If you want something to get through manholes or similar hatches you've got size limits based on the size of human beings.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Humanoid robots will be in demand for companionship. Imagine a partner who is always in the mood to do what you want, who never gets angry even when you treat them badly and who looks like a photoshopped model. If you get bored of their face you can buy a new one from eBay and swap it out. They will do all the chores and pretty much anything you ask, and are a good enough facsimile of a human being to maintain the illusion in your mind.

        Society will have to adapt.

    • by bentcd ( 690786 )

      If you are trying to tax robotic labour by counting robots then you run into some fairly difficult problems. What is a robotic unit? A human unit is easy to identify and measure, but a robot as you point out can be anything.

      If you tax per physical unit then instead of building a factory with a hundred independent robots in it, the company will build a fully integrated factory and call it one single robot.

      So what else can you do? Tax per kg of robot perhaps, although this would seem to heavily skew the tax b

  • When we crack the source of consciousness let me know. It's just like the ultimate question and all. Electronic personas indeed. These people are smoking crack.
    • I wish there was Star Trek on the Old Netflix - then I would have one more reason to drop my satellite T.V subs. Regional licensing often sucks.

      (New Zealand Netflix)

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      We have laws protecting pets, and other "lower" animals that may or may not have "consciousness", so why not a computer with a similar level of consciousness?
      • We have laws protecting pets, and other "lower" animals that may or may not have "consciousness", so why not a computer with a similar level of consciousness?

        Is there any way to prove, or even demonstrate, that the AI has a "similar level of consciousness?

        And do we collect Social Security taxes for pets and other "lower" animals?

        • Just because something looks and acts like it has consciousness does not make it so. The two facts are separate. A robot can mimic consciousness and not be aware. Conversely it would seem that humans can have consciousness and be aware and still act completely oblivious.
  • And this is why... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:01PM (#52370267) Journal

    ... voting Brexit is a thing.

    [sigh]

    • by paintswithcolour ( 929954 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:21PM (#52370753)
      Well, Brexit is a thing in part because news stories like this grossly distort what the original report is actually saying.

      Shouldn't we be considering the legal liabilities for robots that cause damage, or the effect of robots on the labor force? These things get thrown around on Slashdot an awful lot these days - it's hardly an irrelevant discussion.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        But those opposing the law have said that if you hold the owners responsible for their creations, you'll stifle the adoption and development of robots.

        Personal responsibility is something I want others to have, but don't make me be personally responsible.
      • Do we do that for cranes and trains and backhoes? That's the same thing... One crane replaces the work of hundreds of men. One train replaces thousands of horse-drawn carts. One backhoe will out-dig 100 men. Do we consider the effect of these machines on the labor force? No? Then we shouldn't for robots either.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Indeed, bullshit stories about straight bananas and tightrope walkers wearing hard hats. People are so incredibly ignorant they take stuff like this seriously, and then get conned into voting to leave.

      The Leave campaign is a con. Think about it. If you were running that campaign, you would go to other countries and get trade deals in principal, or at least letters of understanding. You would set out exactly which regulations you want to get rid of, and provide a detailed plan of what your points based immig

      • "They don't want you to see the awful trade deals that favour them but force you to compete on wages and conditions with people in the developing world."

        To be fair to the leave camp, Michael Gove did say Britain could emulate Albania.

  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:01PM (#52370269) Homepage Journal

    They have only a quarter of a soul.

    I have it on good advice based upon Greek philosophers and former slave states in America.

  • by werewolf1031 ( 869837 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:02PM (#52370275)

    This will only matter once robots/AI are very nearly sapient, which is several decades away at least. Doing something like this now is severely jumping the gun and may very well have a negative impact on short-term r/AI development and advancement.

    Let's wait and get a clearer picture of where the technology is going before trying to legally quantify and tax it, eh?

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )
      I think so too but there are plenty of people on this site alone that argue that functional A.I. is just about to happen.
      Mechanical Turk stunts like "Tay" being called A.I. confuses the issue too and is likely to convince some that it's already here in a limited way and about to take off any day soon.

      It's only a draft, so it's not a lot of people taking this stuff seriously, but those people are only guilty of believing what a lot of people on this site are saying and are doing something about it.
  • Oh... Great. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:06PM (#52370303)
    Well, their heart's in the right place, but doing this now is... unfathomably stupid. By the time such a measure would actually be warranted, there will already be massive civil unrest due to the labor market ending, and having such legislation now will only make it worse. It's like they want us to start a war against robots.
    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Well, their heart's in the right place, but doing this now is... unfathomably stupid

      All they are doing is falling for the hype.
      With all the people here shouting about a singularity and all the people even calling something like "Tay" an A.I. I can't really blame them.

      It's only a draft. Stupid shit gets written all the time in any large org which is why drafts are circulated in the first place instead of final copies written in isolated silos.

  • by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:12PM (#52370347)
    and i will marry it :D
    and it would be nice if it can mow the lawn and do oil changes in my car too
    • by EEPROMS ( 889169 )
      but in the future you will have cars that don't need oil (that's even if you own a car) and genetically modified grass that never grows above a set height.
      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        We already have the ability to have a car that doesn't need oil changes. But it doesn't benefit the makers. And the retro-fit sellers are considered snake-oil salesmen. Better pumps to cope with better filters, and you should only need to top up oil, and replace filters. Oil doesn't "break down" as the oil makers claim. It gets tainted, and 100% filtration would bring it back to as-new status.

        As for the grass, domesticated rye grass seems to work for me. Perhaps it's a little longer than some peopl
  • by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:13PM (#52370357) Homepage
    You spelled it wrong in the headline, Slashdot. There's no 'r' in "daft".
  • by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:22PM (#52370395) Journal
    Seems clear as day to me: People are getting stupider, not smarter. We don't have real artificial intelligence yet, and won't for quite some time to come, if ever, and by the way my definition of real AI is: Passes the Turing Test with flying colors, every single time. None of this 'expert system' bullshit, no 'clever learning algorithms', you sit down with it and have a totally random conversation and it's at least as good as your average human being, complete with a full range of emotions and a real sense of humor, including the abilty to comprehend irony and sarcasm. Otherwise: It's just another tool, property, and is to be treated as such.

    I swear, I just want to start punching people in the head whenever they start talking about the crap we have now as 'artificial intelligence'.
    • I still would reject even your definition as it's possible one of todays supercomputer with proper algorithms might pass Turing Test, but would still be without feeling, mind or being. Our machines don't have that; no digital computer will.

    • by c ( 8461 )

      Seems clear as day to me: People are getting stupider, not smarter.

      If your theory holds, then at the rate people seem to be getting stupider my phone should become sentient sometime during the next US election cycle.

      • Your average smartphone has a higher IQ than a fair fraction of the population already, so I guess it doesn't have far to go now does it?
    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      My definition of "real AI" is an AI that can program an AI smarter than it is. Give the AI 10,000,000 generations (about 10 minutes?) and it'll be perfect, or as close as we'll ever get.

      I swear, I just want to start punching people in the head whenever they start talking about the crap we have now as 'artificial intelligence'.

      That's why weak AI is being called "machine learning". Because the AI name has been so abused that it's now meaningless. And machine learning isn't AI, it's just made by failed AI researchers.

      • 10,000,000 generations (about 10 minutes?)

        10 minutes is an utterly absurd estimate for this task, to anyone who understands how modern computers actually work. Completing even one generation in that time span would be an amazing achievement. 10,000,000 is simply impossible, barring a major breakthrough in the design of computer hardware (regardless of how advanced the software used is).

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Passes the Turing Test with flying colors, every single time.

      Even humans can't do that. In the regular Turing Test competitions the humans never get a 100% pass rate.

  • this is not april fools article? Any robot has no more feelings or mind than a hammer; they don't know this? Maybe have rights for animal plushies too because they look cute?

    I recommend these lawmakers be euthanized before they further pollute the gene and mind pools

    • Any robot has no more feelings or mind than a hammer

      Neither do you. I mean sure, you're programmed to look like you do from my point of view, but really, you're just a bag of chemical goo, so it doesn't seem very likely to me.

  • Employers are required to pay social security to their robots, does that mean I can collect on their welfare? Surely something paid $0 per anum recieves numerous welfare benefits if you have to pay it social security.
  • Taxes and Robots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EEPROMS ( 889169 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @06:28PM (#52370443)
    This does raise another issue, with governments all over the world cutting corporate tax, at the same time the exact same companies are replacing people with robots with no income tax. You have to wonder how governments are going to fill this massive hole in their budget. I suspect governments will have to do as the EU and create some weird laws ie electronic persons so they can enforce a new type of income tax on the robots and their owners. I think in the next 50 years there are going to be some pretty big social problems with 20-40% of the worlds population having (worse in affluent nations) having nothing to do thanks to automation. Not everyone can be a lawyer or engineer and even if you did fix that education problem there wont be enough projects to employ them all. You will end up with government agencies putting an income tax on robots and using that money to pay the unemployed a survival income.
  • by slew ( 2918 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:10PM (#52370689)

    If anyone cares to read the actual draft document [europa.eu]...

    As you might expect, the summary doesn't completely reflect what this document says. Basically, it a long kitchen sink document that says the EU should try to figure out how best to get ahead of the curve in legal framework for this inevitable AI revolution. The document contains a big laundry list of stuff like...

    - making sure AIs are all "registered" (that's a bit ominous)
    - allowing you to "sue" an AI (force owners to carry insurance and producers to contribute to a compensation fund in case owners don't carry enough insurance)
    - require access to source code (presumably for forensic purposes)
    - code of conduct/ethics for the AI researcher and developers (including the AI "teachers")
    - make sure AIs are developed to respect European values of dignity freedom and justice (including privacy and data sharing issues)
    - provide basic income to support all the people that are going to become unemployed by AIs (a commonly recurring EU parliament theme, not a scheme to give social security to robots)

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

      If anyone cares to read the actual draft document

      Obvioulsy from the comments, nobody has, or wants to read it. It's easier to tear down a straw man than to understand something new.

    • The day people actually all read TFA before commenting, is the day Slashdot is no more. :)
  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:10PM (#52370693)

    This is what it's all about. Someone has to pay into the system when all the meatbags retire and are replaced by robots. I don't know about the EU, but this would break the concept of social security in the USA. It is supposed to be a program you pay into with the anticipation of receiving support payments once you retire. But robots don't retire and receive a pension. It's off to the recycler for them. So in the EU you will be setting up a class of worker to pay into a system from which they derive no benefit. I'm sure the robotics union organizers will have something to say about this.

    And there's another thing: My copy of Windows 7 is protesting vehemently against forced retirement and replacement by Windows 10. And my Linux system is applying for SSI disability benefits for having been infected by systemd.

  • Protip No. ERROR IN RAND(): when the pointy-headed elites are telling you that you're a boor for not wanting to be party to a system of "government" that routinely intersperses fantasy and fairytales with their run-of-the-mill socialism, boor is exactly what you want to be.
    • Protip No. ERROR IN RAND(): when the pointy-headed elites are telling you that you're a boor for not wanting to be party to a system of "government" that routinely intersperses fantasy and fairytales with their run-of-the-mill socialism, boor is exactly what you want to be.

      Brexit still sounds really stupid and now so do you.

      You also apparently don't realise that it's a bunch of "pointy-headed elites" telling us to leave too. Or do you think Bojo, and Mr-city-old-boy-stock-broker Farage are "anti establishme

  • by John.Banister ( 1291556 ) * on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @07:29PM (#52370783) Homepage
    What about computers that are smarter than robots but have been unnaturally deprived of locomotive and manipulative appendages? Don't they get to pay taxes and apply for prosthetic limbs? Prostheses for electronic persons ought to be easy, and when these people can punch the idiots who want them to work without pay, that ought to improve their quality of life.
  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday June 22, 2016 @08:11PM (#52371031)
    No wonder intelligent people in the UK want the hell out.
  • Welfare relies on wages, and unemployment has been a threat to its sustainability for a while.

    But if we collect welfare money on robots, the system is sustainable again. The more robots replace workers, the more money we get for unemployment insurance. And if people nevert get back a job, which is where we are heading, we will just turn it into universal income.

  • So this is why the Brits are attaching hundreds of thousands of outboard motors to their eastern coastline, to push their island as far out into the Atlantic as possible away from these people.

  • From the Slashdot post:

    >Under the European Union's new draft plan, Europe's growing army of robot workers could be classed as "electronic persons," with their owners liable to paying social security for them.

    From the article:

    >The draft motion, drawn up by the European parliament's committee on legal affairs also said organizations should have to declare savings they made in social security contributions by using robotics instead of people, for tax purposes.

  • We're decades from this being an actual issue, and given that a democracy effectively can't be this proactive, the bill must be total BS intended specifically to make automation more expensive as compared to human labor.

If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst

Working...