The case for taxing AI slop

rancisco is working on a highly anticipated book when he learns he will need to be the full-time caretaker for his terminally ill mother. His income from copy-editing has all but disappeared since the release of LLMs. His book contract is in peril. It is saved when his publishers secure bridge funding that enables Francisco to hire a caregiver.

A high school in New Mexico where 65% of the students are categorized as food insecure can fund a year’s worth of visual art and music supplies. Last year, funding for “Arts & Creativity” was cut in order to accommodate tax concessions dealt to a datacenter project in the county.

One of the last remaining independently-owned newspapers in Ohio is on the verge of folding when they get a lifeline grant, enabling them to make payroll. A private equity firm attempted to assume control with the intent to automate web articles using generative AI summaries of newswires.

In Kansas, a public radio station launches a weekly segment focused on big agriculture and its impact on farming ecosystems. Travel, editing, and original music are funded. They stream it online, where it becomes a surprise hit.

As the clock strikes midnight on New Year’s Eve, 25,000 researchers and educators are sent need-based grants to cover rent, materials, and other expenses for the calendar year. There was no short list, long list, or onerous grant application process from a foundation started by a wealthy arms dealer. Anyone qualified as a cultural worker—a term spanning disciplines and research methods—is able to apply for funds. None of them are working on generative artificial intelligence, and most of them view using genAI as an alien interloper into their practice. Yet their work is urgent and enriching. Over half of them report being on the verge of quitting their practice if not for this financial support.