Contest: Robot, Automaton, Mechanization, Cash Register?

[Speakeasy]

Not a Political Discussion, nor an Economic One: A “Word Contest”!
I would not be surprised to learn that most members were acutely aware of the increasing automation of many tasks which once required a fair amount of paid human labour, the resulting displacement of workers, the stagnation of wages, the increasing economic disparities and other injustices which have resulted from this relentless process, as well as the glaring evidence of the need to develop sustainable, humane approaches for dealing with the current and projected effects. So, let’s not go there!

Watch Your Language!
While encouraging collective restraint, I was wondering what the members thoughts might be on the “language” employed in a recent proposal by a political party to “tax robots” (we, here in the large, but mostly inhospitable land mass called Canada, are in the midst of a Federal election campaign). As an aside, I am confident that a neighbour of mine, from many decades ago, would have characterised the manner in which this proposal was rolled out as a clear example of “bumper sticker logic”; that is, the reduction and the phrasing of a complex problem, and of an even more complex set of solutions, in a manner so that it can be printed on a sticker and applied to a car bumper with a view to mobilizing (if not confounding) the citizenry. It was once "save the whales!", now it's "tax the robots!"

Words Count!
So, they want to "tax the robots” do they? While I doubt very much that the people behind this proposal are genuine Luddites, I find myself wondering about the language that will have to be developed so that the bureaucrats and the citizenry, respectively, can unfailingly (and correctly) apply and respect the amended tax code. In other words, what is a robot? Is an automaton a robot? At what point does mechanization become automation and when does the latter become robotization? Are modern cash registers, which receive much of their data via optical scanners and which calculate not just the correct amount of change to be rendered in a financial transaction, but also the applicable sales taxes, the changes in inventory, et cetera, robots? In not, were one to include features such as customer-scanning of the purchased items, automated payment, and machine-assisted bagging, would that be a robot? Are elevators, and the queuing programmes which ensure the automated distribution of wagons according to predicated and actual fluctuations in demand and which have long since replaced human operators, robots? Are ancient Egyptian water wheels job-thieving robots? Do you see where I am going (they are going) with this? Where is the cut-off point? What would be taxable and what would be exempt from the proposed taxes? Words count!

Your Assignment
I invite the members of the forum to develop a definition of “robot” for the purposes of inclusion in the proposed changes to the tax legislation. While I have absolutely no legal training whatsoever, it seems only reasonable to me that, as your definition of robot will be a matter of legislation, it must be expressed in a manner which, at the very least, ensures: (a) that there is a high probably that the tax officials who will be called upon to apply and enforce the law through the preparation and promulgation of detailed regulations and procedures will be able to carry out their duties rapidly, efficiently, and with great efficacy, (b) that a presumed honest and cooperative citizenry will be able to understand the new regulations and will be afforded the opportunity of respecting them in a practical sense and in a simple manner, and (c) that dishonest or uncooperative citizens will not be afforded the opportunity of “deliberately misunderstanding” the regulations and thereby of avoiding paying the applicable taxes by taking refuge behind what are commonly referred to as “loop holes” in the legislation.

All Eyes are on You!
You are in the incoming Minister of National Revenue of Canada. Your definition of "robot" must capture the “spirit and the essence” behind this proposal. It must pass reading in the House of Commons and in the Senate. It must be capable of implementation in both a legal and in a practical sense. Furthermore, the Federal Minister of Finance of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada will be tasked, with the assistance of the Staff of Statistics Canada and the Minster for Industry of Canada, to determine how many “robots” (according to your definition) there are presently within the nation, the projected rate of expansion of these inhuman beasts, and to calculate the projected additional revues generated by these new taxes over a ten year period. Clearly, the Canadian Provinces will be relying on your work, they will critique it, they will denounce it as politically inspired and heavily biased, and they will demand just compensation (lots of it!). Ditto for innumerable other parties who will claim to have a vested interest. While you are permitted to include examples in support of your submission, please be advised that specific, limiting examples are seldom included in tax legislation. In other words, your definition must be be sufficiently clear as to capture the current, reality of "robots" as well as the projected reality of this technology, without resorting to specific examples. As you can see, everybody is counting on you! Start drafting your proposed definition (be fair, now!).

Prizes to be Awarded
Prizes will be awarded to the contestant submitting the best proposed definition: The winner of the 1st prize will receive a voucher covering an all-expenses-paid one-week vacation in Toronto, Canada. The winner of the 2nd prize will receive a voucher covering an all-expenses-paid two-weeks’ vacation in Toronto, Canada (old Canadian inside joke from the eighties).

EDITED:
Tinkering.

[Speakeasy]

Plan “A”: Contest

Reaction to the Invitation:
thud (θʌd )

1. countable noun [usually singular]
A thud is a dull sound, such as that which a heavy object makes when it hits something soft.
She tripped and fell with a sickening thud.
Much of their study and revision was done to the thud of hammers and pneumatic drills.
I heard the regular thud thud thud of running shoes behind me.
Synonyms: thump, crash, knock, smack

2. verb
If something thuds somewhere, it makes a dull sound, usually when it falls onto or hits something else.
She ran up the stairs, her bare feet thudding on the wood. [VERB preposition/adverb]
The windscreen wipers thudded back and forth. [VERB preposition/adverb]
There was a heavy thudding noise against the bedroom door. [VERB-ing][Also VERB]
Synonyms: thump, crash, knock, smack

Source: Collins English Dictionary Online

Conclusion:
Prospective participants in this contest were not tempted by the thought of spending one or two weeks in Toronto. No other conclusion is even remotely possible.

Plan “B”: Get Involved in Charitable Work
Invest the funds, which would have been used to purchase the all-expenses-paid vacations in Toronto, in the purchase of vintage language-learning materials. Horde these treasures in my basement. Take them with me into the after-life.

[Adrianslont]

I’ll share some thoughts if the two weeks in Toronto includes air fares! I live in Australia. I fly Business for long haul.

Seriously, this is such a rabbit hole - an interesting one but, though. I could talk about it over a hot beverage for an hour but I enjoy typing on my phone less.

My overriding reaction is that taxing robots, however they are defined, is not a good idea: it would stifle progress - progress that will be necessary to feed the world and improve the environment. That said, I believe the impact robots have on the working population will need to be addressed.

Hard to go any further without getting political.

There you are, that’s a contribution to the discussion. Close the contest now and DM me with details of how to collect my prize!

[Speakeasy]

... There you are, that’s a contribution to the discussion. Close the contest now and DM me with details of how to collect my prize!

Adrianslont, thank you very much for your submission!

As to the possible “political” discussion here, I hoped to side-step such issues by turning the whole affair into the search of a definition of “robot” which would be required to meet the legal and practical needs of the proposed new tax legislation. Clearly, technology is advancing at an accelerating pace. Putting aside “mechanical robots” and “automation” which would be very difficult to circumscribe, would the new taxation rules apply to “artificial intelligence”? What will does future portend in the way of “robots”? Any definition would have to deal with an astounding range of possibilities: ancient Egyptian water wheels to goodness knows what the future will bring! Seriously, the proponents of this politically-inspired “bumper-sticker logic” proposal have got their work cut out for themselves.

Returning to the granting of the prizes, unfortunately, as your submission did not include a definition of “robot”, it cannot qualify in the competition. Nevertheless, as yours is the sole submission to date, the judges have just informed me that they have convened a meeting to review the rules of the contest and see whether or not something might be done to help you. One judge whispered in my ear that, were you to make a second submission, and were you to express an interest in spending two weeks’ vacation in Toronto, they would be open to the idea of according you 2nd prize.

Now then, I am afraid that I have some distressing news concerning the prizes. It would appear that the organizers of this contest, on the basis of the “political nature” of the matter under discussion, applied for and received a Federal Government Grant in support of free and open political debate. As the amount of the grant did not cover either the costs of the prizes to be awarded or the administrative costs, the organizers “invested” the grant funds through the purchase of a large number of lottery tickets. Their “winnings” to date amount to one “free” ticket on the next draw of the lottery. The judges have informed me that, should the next draw result in the obtaining of any monetary prizes, these funds will be awarded to the winners of this competition, less the administrative costs of operating said competition (which, as you have likely anticipated, are rather substantial).