pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02144 · v1 · pith:TX6SMO32new · submitted 2026-07-02 · 💻 cs.CY

Taxing Artificial Intelligence

Juliette Faivre , Sarah H. Cen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 05:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords AI taxationexternalitiesPigouvian correctionredistributionregulatory capacitytax instrumentsAI policyinnovation costs
0
0 comments X

The pith

Taxation can address AI harms by correcting activity, redistributing costs and gains, and funding regulatory capacity, beyond Pigouvian correction alone.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how AI development imposes environmental pressures, labor displacement, and systemic risks on others. It argues that tax instruments offer ways to correct these harms, shift resources from winners to those bearing costs, and support oversight bodies. The authors survey corporate income taxes, rent-based taxes, consumption taxes on AI services, and targeted excise taxes, weighing their ability to match specific externalities against problems of measurement, incidence, and effects on innovation. A reader would care because this framing expands tax policy from simple penalty to a multi-purpose tool in AI governance.

Core claim

AI taxation should not be viewed solely as Pigouvian correction for externalities. Instead, it can correct harmful activity, redistribute unevenly borne costs and gains, and fund regulatory capacity. The paper surveys the main AI externalities and evaluates instruments including corporate income and rent-based taxes, consumption taxes on AI-related services, and excise taxes tied to specific activities, assessing each for feasibility, measurement challenges, incidence, leakage, and innovation costs. Because externalities differ in nuanced ways, tax policy must be designed to fit the particular harms and objectives.

What carries the argument

Survey of tax instruments (corporate income and rent-based taxes, consumption taxes on AI services, excise taxes on specific activities) and their evaluation against measurement problems, incidence, leakage, and innovation costs to match distinct AI externalities.

If this is right

  • Tax design must be matched to the specific type of AI harm rather than applied uniformly.
  • Excise instruments can target particular activities like high-compute training runs.
  • Corporate and consumption taxes can shift gains toward those bearing displacement or environmental costs.
  • Revenue from these taxes can support the administrative capacity needed for AI oversight.
  • Policy must weigh feasibility and pitfalls for each instrument against the objective it serves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such taxes might alter the relative speed of different AI development paths by raising costs for activities with high externalities.
  • The approach could link to existing labor or environmental tax regimes when AI harms overlap with those domains.
  • Pilot implementations in specific sectors could test whether measurement of AI usage is practical at scale.
  • Revenue recycling rules would determine whether redistribution actually reaches affected communities or stays at the national level.

Load-bearing premise

The listed tax instruments can be designed and implemented without prohibitive measurement problems, leakage, or innovation costs.

What would settle it

Data from implemented AI taxes showing persistent leakage to other jurisdictions or measurable slowdown in innovation without corresponding gains in redistribution or regulatory funding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02144 by Juliette Faivre, Sarah H. Cen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Summary of the paper’s main findings and arguments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Supply and demand for AI activity under taxation. The left panel shows how a supply-side tax [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While AI promises major benefits, its development and deployment can shift costs onto others, including environmental pressures on local communities, labor and creative displacement, and systemic risks from rapid frontier development. Taxation is an integral part of policy design, and recent academic, industry, and policy debates have begun to consider whether tax instruments can help address these harms. In this paper, we explore the viability of AI taxation. More broadly, AI taxation should not be understood only as Pigouvian correction. In the AI context, taxation can also correct harmful activity, redistribute unevenly borne costs and gains, and fund regulatory capacity. We discuss the main externalities associated with AI and survey possible tax instruments, including corporate income and rent-based taxes, consumption taxes on AI-related services, and excise instruments tied to specific AI activities. We further assess the benefits and pitfalls of these instruments, including feasibility, measurement problems, incidence, leakage, and innovation costs. Because AI externalities differ in nuanced ways, tax policy must be carefully designed and matched to the specific harms and policy objectives.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that AI taxation should not be understood solely as Pigouvian correction for externalities. Instead, in the AI context it can also correct harmful activities, redistribute unevenly borne costs and gains, and fund regulatory capacity. It surveys key externalities (environmental pressures on communities, labor and creative displacement, systemic risks from frontier development) and possible instruments (corporate income and rent-based taxes, consumption taxes on AI services, excise taxes tied to specific activities), while assessing benefits and pitfalls including feasibility, measurement problems, incidence, leakage, and innovation costs. The conclusion is that tax policy must be carefully designed and matched to specific harms and objectives.

Significance. If the reframing holds, the paper offers a timely multi-objective conceptual framework for integrating taxation into AI governance debates. Its explicit treatment of design pitfalls as open questions rather than resolved provides a balanced basis for further policy analysis. The absence of formal models or empirical tests is consistent with the exploratory scope.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central reframing distinguishes 'Pigouvian correction' from the ability of taxation to 'correct harmful activity,' but Pigouvian taxes are by definition intended to correct externalities arising from harmful activities; this overlap is not addressed and risks undermining the claim that taxation serves distinct additional functions beyond standard externality correction.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from additional references to prior work on AI externalities and regulatory taxation to better situate its contribution within existing policy literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The recommendation for minor revision is appreciated, and we address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central reframing distinguishes 'Pigouvian correction' from the ability of taxation to 'correct harmful activity,' but Pigouvian taxes are by definition intended to correct externalities arising from harmful activities; this overlap is not addressed and risks undermining the claim that taxation serves distinct additional functions beyond standard externality correction.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract's phrasing creates an unintended overlap. Pigouvian taxes are indeed designed to internalize externalities arising from harmful activities, so distinguishing 'correct harmful activity' as a separate function risks weakening the central claim. Our intent was to argue that taxation in the AI domain can pursue objectives beyond externality correction—specifically redistribution of unevenly distributed costs and gains, and financing regulatory capacity—while still acknowledging Pigouvian uses. We will revise the abstract (and any parallel language in the introduction) to remove the ambiguous phrasing, explicitly frame Pigouvian correction as one possible role, and reserve the 'also' language for the distinct functions of redistribution and regulatory funding. This change will be made in the next version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a conceptual survey and policy discussion with no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or mathematical models. It draws on standard economic principles of externalities, Pigouvian taxes, and redistribution without reducing any claim to its own inputs by construction. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked. The central reframing (taxation serving corrective, redistributive, and revenue functions) rests on external economic literature and explicit discussion of implementation pitfalls, making the argument self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The discussion rests on standard economic assumptions about externalities and the role of taxation; no free parameters, new entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced beyond domain assumptions about AI harms.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption AI development and deployment generate identifiable negative externalities that policy instruments including taxation can address.
    Invoked throughout the abstract when framing taxation as a response to environmental, labor, and systemic costs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5699 in / 1177 out tokens · 30934 ms · 2026-07-03T05:59:52.016911+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

227 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ryan Abbott and Bret Bogenschneider. 2018. Should Robots Pay Taxes? Tax Policy in the Age of Automation.Harvard Law & Policy Review12 (2018), 145–175. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2932483

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.2932483 2018

  2. [2]

    AEP Ohio. 2026. PUCO Approves AEP Ohio Rate Settlement and a More Transparent Bill Format. https://www.aepohio.com/company/news/view?releaseID=11835News release. Published April 1,

    2026

  3. [3]

    Accessed May 30, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    International Energy Agency. 2025. AI Is Set to Drive Surging Electricity Demand from Data Centres While Offering the Potential to Transform How the Energy Sector Works.https://www.iea.org/ne ws/ai-is-set-to-drive-surging-electricity-demand-from-data-centres-while-offering-t he-potential-to-transform-how-the-energy-sector-works

    2025

  5. [5]

    2025.Energy and AI

    International Energy Agency. 2025.Energy and AI. World Energy Outlook Special Report. Interna- tional Energy Agency.https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/de9dea13-b07d-42c5-a39 8-d1b3ae17d866/EnergyandAI.pdfAccessed May 30, 2026

    2025

  6. [6]

    United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Report to Congress on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency.https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/EP A_Datacenter_Report_Congress_Final1.pdf

    2007

  7. [7]

    2017.Artificial intelligence and economic growth

    Philippe Aghion, Benjamin F Jones, and Charles I Jones. 2017.Artificial intelligence and economic growth. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research. 28

    2017

  8. [8]

    Artificialintelligenceriskmanagementframework(AIRMF1.0).URL: https://nvlpubs

    NISTAI.2023. Artificialintelligenceriskmanagementframework(AIRMF1.0).URL: https://nvlpubs. nist. gov/nistpubs/ai/nist. ai(2023), 100–1

    2023

  9. [9]

    Shuroug A Alowais, Sahar S Alghamdi, Nada Alsuhebany, Tariq Alqahtani, Abdulrahman I Alshaya, Sumaya NAlmohareb, AtheerAldairem, MohammedAlrashed, Khalid BinSaleh, HishamABadreldin, et al. 2023. Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice.BMC medical education23, 1 (2023), 689

    2023

  10. [10]

    Dario Amodei. 2024. The Adolescence of Technology.https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/the-a dolescence-of-technology

    2024

  11. [11]

    Dario Amodei. 2026. Policy on the AI Exponential.https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-t he-ai-exponentialEssay, published June 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    Virginia General Assembly. 2026. Data Center Electricity Consumption Tax.https://budget.lis .virginia.gov/amendment/2026/2/HB30/Introduced/CR/3-5.24/1c/HB30 Conference Report, Item 3-5.24 #1c

    2026

  13. [13]

    Ohio Manufacturers’ Association. 2026. Inflated Ohio Utility Load Forecasts Drive Electric Prices Higher.https://www.ohiomfg.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/RetoolingOhio_AEP_Feb.pdf Accessed May 31, 2026

    2026

  14. [14]

    Alan J Auerbach. 2006. Who bears the corporate tax? A review of what we know.Tax policy and the economy20 (2006), 1–40

    2006

  15. [15]

    Ryan S Baker and Aaron Hawn. 2022. Algorithmic bias in education.International journal of artificial intelligence in education32, 4 (2022), 1052–1092

    2022

  16. [16]

    Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data’s disparate impact.California law review(2016), 671–732

    2016

  17. [17]

    Robert Bartlett, Adair Morse, Richard Stanton, and Nancy Wallace. 2022. Consumer-lending discrim- ination in the FinTech era.Journal of Financial Economics143, 1 (2022), 30–56

    2022

  18. [18]

    1988.The theory of environmental policy

    William J Baumol and Wallace E Oates. 1988.The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge uni- versity press

    1988

  19. [19]

    Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz. 2025. Sharing the Algorithm: The Tax Solution to Generative AI.Columbia Journal of Tax Law17, 1 (2025), 1–40. doi:10.52214/cjtl.v17i1.14478

    work page doi:10.52214/cjtl.v17i1.14478 2025

  20. [20]

    Stuart Bender. 2025. Generative-AI, the media industries, and the disappearance of human creative labour.Media Practice and Education26, 2 (2025), 200–217

    2025

  21. [21]

    Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao, et al. 2024. Managing Extreme AI Risks Amid Rapid Progress.Science384 (2024), 842–845

    2024

  22. [22]

    2025.Examining AI Safety as a Global Public Good: Implications, Challenges, and Research Priorities

    Kayla Blomquist, Elisabeth Siegel, Ben Harack, Kwan Yee Ng, Tom David, Brian Tse, Charles Martinet, Matt Sheehan, Scott Singer, Imane Bello, Zakariyau Yusuf, Robert Trager, Fadi Salem, Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Jing Zhao, and Kai Jia. 2025.Examining AI Safety as a Global Public Good: Implications, Challenges, and Research Priorities. Technical Report. Oxford M...

    2025

  23. [23]

    Ulrik Boesen. 2021. Excise tax application and trends.Tax foundation753 (2021). 29

    2021

  24. [24]

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. 2021. On the oppor- tunities and risks of foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258(2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Rishi Bommasani, Kevin Klyman, Shayne Longpre, Sayash Kapoor, Nestor Maslej, Betty Xiong, Daniel Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2023. The foundation model transparency index.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12941(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Rishi Bommasani, Kevin Klyman, Shayne Longpre, Betty Xiong, Sayash Kapoor, Nestor Maslej, Arvind Narayanan, and Percy Liang. 2024. Foundation model transparency reports. InProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol. 7. 181–195

    2024

  27. [27]

    Rishi Bommasani, Dilara Soylu, Thomas I Liao, Kathleen A Creel, and Percy Liang. 2024. Ecosystem graphs: Documentingthefoundationmodelsupplychain.InProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol. 7. 196–209

    2024

  28. [28]

    Bonaparte

    Y. Bonaparte. 2026. Should We Tax Robots? Innovation, Productivity, and the Future of Fiscal Policy. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4701234

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4701234 2026

  29. [29]

    N Bostrom. 2013. Existential risk prevention as global priority. Global Policy, 4 (1), 15-31

    2013

  30. [30]

    Donald J Boudreaux and Roger Meiners. 2019. Externality: Origins and classifications.Nat. Res. J. 59 (2019), 1

    2019

  31. [31]

    Robert Brauneis. 2025. Copyright and the Training of Human Authors and Generative Machines.The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts48, 1 (2025), 1–59. doi:10.52214/jla.v48i1.13529

    work page doi:10.52214/jla.v48i1.13529 2025

  32. [32]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  33. [33]

    Miles Brundage, Shahar Avin, Jack Clark, Helen Toner, Peter Eckersley, Ben Garfinkel, Allan Dafoe, Paul Scharre, Thomas Zeitzoff, Bobby Filar, et al. 2018. The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07228(2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Miles Brundage, Noemi Dreksler, Aidan Homewood, Sean McGregor, Patricia Paskov, Conrad Stosz, Girish Sastry, A Feder Cooper, George Balston, Steven Adler, et al. 2026. Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11699(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Erik Brynjolfsson, Bharat Chandar, and Ruyu Chen. 2025. Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence.https://digitaleconomy.stanfor d.edu/app/uploads/2025/12/CanariesintheCoalMine_Nov25.pdf

    2025

  36. [36]

    Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond. 2025. Generative AI at work.The Quarterly Journal of Economics140, 2 (2025), 889–942

    2025

  37. [37]

    Daniel Bunn, Cristina Enache, and Ulrik Boesen. 2021. Consumption tax policies in OECD countries. Washington, D. C: Tax Foundation(2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    Thomas Buocz, Sebastian Pfotenhauer, and Iris Eisenberger. 2023. Regulatory sandboxes in the AI Act: reconciling innovation and safety?Law, Innovation and Technology15, 2 (2023), 357–389

    2023

  39. [39]

    2025.Genai misinformation, trust, and news consumption: Evidence from a field experiment

    Filipe R Campante, Ruben Durante, Felix Hagemeister, and Ananya Sen. 2025.Genai misinformation, trust, and news consumption: Evidence from a field experiment. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research. 30

    2025

  40. [40]

    Nicolas Carlini, Jamie Hayes, Milad Nasr, Matthew Jagielski, Vikash Sehwag, Florian Tramer, Borja Balle, Daphne Ippolito, and Eric Wallace. 2023. Extracting training data from diffusion models. (2023), 5253–5270

    2023

  41. [41]

    Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, et al. 2021. Extracting training data from large language models. In30th USENIX security symposium (USENIX Security 21). 2633–2650

    2021

  42. [42]

    Christian Catalini, Xiang Hui, and Jane Wu. 2026. Some simple economics of AGI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.20946(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    2017.Income Redistribution Through Taxes and Transfers Across OECD Countries

    Orsetta Causa and Mikkel Hermansen. 2017.Income Redistribution Through Taxes and Transfers Across OECD Countries. OECD Economics Department Working Paper 1453. OECD. doi:10.1787/ bc7569c6-en

    2017

  44. [44]

    Cen, Lindsey Gailmard, Rishi Bommasani, Daniel E

    Sarah H. Cen, Lindsey Gailmard, Rishi Bommasani, Daniel E. Ho, and Percy Liang. 2025. Mapping the AI Supply Chain: An Analysis of the Complex Relationships in the AI Ecosystem.Forthcoming. (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Texas Senate Research Center. 2025. Bill Analysis: C.S.H.B. 149, Texas Responsible Artificial Intelli- gence Governance Act.https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/html/HB00149S.htm 89th Legislature, Regular Session. Committee Report, substituted. Dated May 20, 2025. Accessed May 30, 2026

    2025

  46. [46]

    Alan Chan, Herbie Bradley, and Nitarshan Rajkumar. 2023. Reclaiming the digital commons: A public data trust for training data. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 855–868

    2023

  47. [47]

    Vikram Chand, Svetislav Kostić, and Ariene Reis. 2020. Taxing artificial intelligence and robots: Critical assessment of potential policy solutions and recommendation for alternative approaches.World Tax Journal12, 4 (2020), 711–761

    2020

  48. [48]

    Zhan-Ming Chen, Qiyang Xiong, Jiahui Duan, Jianhong Ma, Zhuo Chen, and Shan Guo. 2025. AI carbon footprint in China sets to double post-2030 carbon peaking.Energy Economics(2025), 108880

    2025

  49. [49]

    Vince Chhabria. 2025. Order Denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Granting Meta’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.https://law.justia.com/cases/f ederal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2023cv03417/415175/598/Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417-VC, Document 598, N.D. Cal., filed June 25, 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    Cilluffo and Molly F

    Anthony A. Cilluffo and Molly F. Sherlock. 2022. Payroll Taxes: An Overview of Taxes Imposed and Past Payroll Tax Relief.https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47062Accessed June 12, 2026

    2022

  51. [51]

    Cristina E Ciocirlan and Bruce Yandle. 2003. The political economy of green taxation in OECD countries.European Journal of Law and Economics15, 3 (2003), 203–218

    2003

  52. [52]

    Jennifer Cobbe, Michael Veale, and Jatinder Singh. 2023. Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency. 1186–1197

    2023

  53. [53]

    Estefania Vergara Cobos, Selcen Cakir, S Straub, CZ Qiang, and C Torgusson. 2024. A review of the economic costs of cyber incidents.World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, Rep193919 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Congressional Research Service. 2024. The Budget Reconciliation Process.https://crsreports.c ongress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44058 31

    2024

  55. [55]

    Spencer J. Cox. 2026. Executive Order 2026-03: Establishing a Higher Bar for Data Center Develop- ment in Utah.https://governor.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026.05.29-EO-Higher-Bar-f or-Data-Center-Development-1.pdfExecutive order, State of Utah

    2026

  56. [56]

    Janet Currie and Firouz Gahvari. 2007. Transfers in Cash and In Kind: Theory Meets the Data. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13557/revisions/w13557.rev0.pdf

    2007

  57. [57]

    Ernesto Dal Bó. 2006. Regulatory capture: A review.Oxford review of economic policy22, 2 (2006), 203–225

    2006

  58. [58]

    James B Davies. 1991. The distributive effects of wealth taxes.Canadian public policy/analyse de Politiques(1991), 279–308

    1991

  59. [59]

    Tatevik Davtyan. 2025. The US approach to AI regulation: Federal laws, policies, and strategies explained.Journal of Law, Technology, & the Internet16, 2 (2025), 223

    2025

  60. [60]

    Donald DeLuca. 2007. Selected Paper from the 2007 IRS Research Conference: Aggregate Estimates of Small Business Taxpayer Compliance Burden.https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07resconf deluca.pdf

    2007

  61. [61]

    Michael P Devereux and Rachel Griffith. 1998. Taxes and the Location of Production: Evidence from a Panel of US Multinationals.Journal of public Economics68, 3 (1998), 335–367

    1998

  62. [62]

    Christina Dimitropoulou. 2024. Robot Taxation: A Normative Tax Policy Analysis-Domestic and International Tax Considerations.IBFD Doctoral Series(2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Ren Bin Lee Dixon and Heather Frase. 2025. Ai incidents: Key components for a mandatory reporting regime.Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology(2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    Marcus Drometer, Marco Frank, Maria Hofbauer Pérez, Carla Rhode, Sebastian Schworm, and Tanja Stitteneder. 2018. Wealth and inheritance taxation: An overview and country comparison.ifo DICE Report16, 2 (2018), 45–54

    2018

  65. [65]

    1994.Excise taxes

    John Fitzgerald Due. 1994.Excise taxes. Vol. 1251. World Bank Publications

    1994

  66. [66]

    Jerome Dumortier, Fengxiu Zhang, and John Marron. 2017. State and federal fuel taxes: The road ahead for US infrastructure funding.Transport Policy53 (2017), 39–49

    2017

  67. [67]

    Kai Ebert, Nicolas Alder, Ralf Herbrich, and Philipp Hacker. 2026. AI, climate, and regulation: From data centers to the AI Act.Computer Law & Security Review61 (2026), 106326

    2026

  68. [68]

    The Economist. 2025. Can AI Replace Junior Workers?The Economist(2025).https://www.econ omist.com/graphic-detail/2025/10/13/can-ai-replace-junior-workers

    2025

  69. [69]

    Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. 2024. GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs.Science384, 6702 (2024), 1306–1308

    2024

  70. [70]

    Kristofer Erickson. 2024. AI and work in the creative industries: digital continuity or discontinuity? Creative Industries Journal(2024), 1–21

    2024

  71. [71]

    Brett Hemenway Falk and Gerry Tsoukalas. 2026. The AI layoff trap.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20617 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Sophia Falk, Nicholas Kluge Corrêa, Sasha Luccioni, Lisa Biber-Freudenberger, and Aimee van Wyns- berghe. 2025. From FLOPs to Footprints: The Resource Cost of Artificial Intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04142(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Richard Fang, Rohan Bindu, Akul Gupta, and Daniel Kang. 2024. Llm agents can autonomously exploit one-day vulnerabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08144(2024). 32

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Francesco Filippucci, Peter Gal, Cecilia Susanna Jona Lasinio, et al. 2024. The impact of artificial intelligence on productivity, distribution and growth. (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Jessica Fjeld, Nele Achten, Hannah Hilligoss, Adam Nagy, and Madhulika Srikumar. 2020. Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication2020-1 (2020)

    2020

  76. [76]

    Victor Fleischer. 2015. Curb your enthusiasm for Pigovian taxes.Vand. L. Rev.68 (2015), 1673

    2015

  77. [77]

    I Can’t Drink the Water

    Michelle Fleury and Nathalie Jimenez. 2025. “I Can’t Drink the Water” - Life Next to a US Data Centre.BBC News(2025).https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8gy7lv448o

    2025

  78. [78]

    Luciano Floridi, Matthias Holweg, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Javier Amaya, Jakob Mökander, and Yuni Wen. 2022. CapAI-A procedure for conducting conformity assessment of AI systems in line with the EU artificial intelligence act.Available at SSRN 4064091(2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2024. FDA User Fees Explained.https://www.fda.gov/indu stry/fda-user-fee-programs/fda-user-fees-explained

    2024

  80. [80]

    Platform for Collaboration on Tax. 2018. Taxation and the Sustainable Development Goals.https: //www.tax-platform.org/sites/pct/files/publications/130559-WP-ReportFinalMar.pdf

    2018

Showing first 80 references.