## 4 Validation and Consequences
### CI, Politics, Taxation  
As we have seen in the industrial revolutions of past centuries, automation is key to progress. First, industrial machines replaced raw labour, then refined machines produced goods, then general-purpose industry robots could diversify and adapt quicker to market needs, then the computer helped further automation, then the advent of the internet (not an automation tool in itself, but a productivity booster) and, finally, AI, have allowed for the creation of an increasing number of goods and services, much more cheaply than was possible with human labour. Any country not investing in AI technology or trying to slow it down will seriously fall behind, as did any country that missed the past industrial revolution, probably even more so. In the future, computers in general, and AI in particular, will dominate the economy of every developed country. Some believe that AI will take our jobs and cause mass unemployment and poverty. Others believe that, for every job taken over by AI, new jobs will be created. We believe that both sides of the debate are misguided. The primary goal is not to have a job and for businesses to maximize profit, but to gain a decent standard of living for as many people as possible. Un(der)employment should not be the focal problem; one may even argue that it is desirable and affordable (for more rationale see e.g., [14]). Crucial to maintaining or increasing global wealth is that the total amount of quality goods and services that are created stays the same or increases, respectively. If a robot or an AI replaces a human worker, the same amount of goods and services are produced, and likely even more, or fewer, but with higher quality. It is then \"just a political matter\" to redistribute these goods and services fairly, ensuring that nobody is worse off--most likely, everyone will be better off and, in the long run, much better off. The importance of immaterial benefits will increase. Few people seem to appreciate this simple economic fact today. This redistribution can be done in a number of different ways:  
* One could continue to decrease working hours for all (e.g., rather than one person working 40 h and one person having no paid job, both could work 20 h with the same salary as before, then 10 h, 5 h, etc. );
* Retirement age could be reduced, instead of the current trend of increasing it;
* We could have universal basic income schemes, funded by higher tax rates, e.g., for those still employed, on productivity and on unproductive financial transactions;
* The government could guarantee every shares in companies for every citizen (maybe initially in companies they have been laid off from), so that they profit rather than suffer from the automation;
* Robots/AI could be taxed, though one needs to be careful with taxing productivity gains to make sure innovation is not stifled. Preferably, one would only tax the negative side effects of a particular automation, e.g., the need for re-education and temporary unemployment costs of laid-off workers. Probably, a well-thought-through combination of these and other measures, suitably adjusted to the increasing automation over time, could avoid any larger outfall, as we have also largely managed technological advances in the past. Of course, the right government and governance is necessary for this transition to be possible and peaceful, but if this occurred, nearly everyone would profit from it (see more in Sections 9 and 10). Generally, policies should be set and managed in a way that the poor could become richer and others, such as investors and entrepreneurs, would profit, but not unduly, from this new societal paradigm. The replacement or improvement of human work with IT has been ongoing for more than half a century, with benefits for all, causing temporary layoffs but generally producing new jobs and societal and economic benefits [15].