AI is about to change everything, and we’re not ready. That’s the overarching message of Bill Gates’s 6,000-word essay about his growing worries over AI, and my initial thought after giving it a skim was this: Tell me something I don’t know.
The disruption that AI’s about to cause will be unprecedented, Gates writes. It could put weapons of mass destruction into the wrong hands. Even worse, it could devastate the job market, with world-altering consequences. We need a plan, and we don’t have one.
To be fair, I don’t think the legendary Microsoft co-founder — who, famously, was late to the internet revolution — just realized that AI could be a problem. If anything, he seems less alarmed by the threat of AI itself (and make no mistake, Gates sounds very alarmed by AI) than he is appalled by the laissez-faire, “let the market sort it out” attitude of those in a position to actually do something.
Welcome to another edition of Prompt Mode, your weekly AI newsletter.
I’m your host, Ben Patterson. Each week on Prompt Mode, I’ll be serving up analysis of the AI trends that matter to everyday users like you and me. Stay tuned for practical AI tips, hands-on experiences with the latest AI tools, and–you guessed it–prompts to help you get the most out of your AI assistants.
Thanks for reading, and if you like what you see, just sign up right here.
Gates’s AI manifesto gets more interesting once he arrives at his proposals, even if the first — a category of “just for humans” jobs that he dubbed “Human Reserved” — sounds more like a rhetorical talking point than an actionable plan.
The idea of uniquely human jobs, including roles such as caretakers and teacher, is a laudable one. But as Gates himself asks, who precisely would be in charge of labeling specific jobs as Human Reserved, and who would enforce it? And let’s face it: The very idea of “Human Reserved” jobs is more than a little dystopian and creepy (or maybe it’s just a sign of the times).
But Gates’s other proposal is far more concrete, albeit certain to be controversial: taxes.
Specifically, we’re talking a tax on AI tokens and robots, and it’s not a new idea. Basically, businesses would need to pay taxes on every AI token they use, adding a new element to the equation when it comes to employers deploying AI in the workplace, and whether to replace human jobs in the process.
As Gates writes, the current tax system actually encourages replacing human workers with AI, given that employers must cough up cash for payroll taxes but may write off AI costs as business expenses.
An AI token tax could flip the equation, deleting the current built-in incentive for employers to replace people with ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, while simultaneously funding programs to help assist and retrain displaced workers.
Would big business hate the idea of an AI token tax? Sure, but I can also think of millions of AI-leery voters who’d likely warm to it.
Of course, the actual implementation of an AI token tax wouldn’t be that simple. As any Claude Fable or GPT-5.6 Sol user will tell you, not all AI tokens are created equal, and they’re certainly not priced that way. How would the tax code keep abreast of the latest AI models? Would certain AI tokens be tax-exempt? Wouldn’t there be ample opportunity for token-tax loopholes?
An AI token tax would be messy, make no mistake. But if you can allow me a movie quote here, it might be the best bad idea we have.
