Exactly. This is such a silly argument. The article takes the argument "if a lot of jobs disappeared since they are now done effectively for free, what about tax revenue??"

It really misses the forrest from the trees. You're transported into a world in which efficiencies mean that much fewer people need to work, but somehow government services and entitlements are unchanged and we need to hit roughly the same percent federal tax receipts or ... what exactly?

Corporations should be taxed on their profits, including profits boosted by the invention of new technology.

I'm not so sure this argument is valid. The invention of the wheel barrow created new jobs in wheel barrow manufacturing and distribution. On the other hand, the promise/threat of AI seems to be the complete displacement of humans in many industries without creating alternative employment for the vast majority.

The problem is that AI takes jobs faster than creating new ones.

That's unique in human history

Apples and oranges. Wheelbarrow is obviously limited in the types of tasks it can handle.

By your logic wheel barrows could potentially replace >90% of all jobs.

AI is on track to being able to remove a society-changing amount of jobs, wheel barrows improved worker's efficiency.

if the wheelbarrows drive, load and unload themselves, maybe?

social unrest must be priced in at this point somewhere

To some degree we already do. Corporations pay taxes.

We, as a society, allow corporations to pull resources from the commons because the other side of it is that their existence provides a value through jobs and tax revenue and such.

If the equation shifts such that the benefits dry up, but the downsides only increase, why should we allow that?

The solution could be as simple as higher business taxes or as wild as universal basic income.

It could be something like all AI is forced to be open source, open weight, free at least as far as the knowledge parts.

There's certainly no God given right to exclusively benefit from an invention. We allow that for as long as we care to.

And there's nothing illogical about changing these decisions as factors change.

It’s not about logic. It’s about humanity. We are losing.