Microsoft co-founder, Bill Gates, has proposed setting aside some jobs exclusively for humans and taxing AI and robots as part of measures to manage the disruption he expects artificial intelligence to cause in the labour market.

Gates made the proposals in a more than 6,000-word essay titled “The turbulent AI era is here. The choices we make now are critical,” published on his Gates Notes website on Wednesday.

The proposals formed part of Gates’ recommendations for managing what he described as the transition into an AI era that could fundamentally change how people work, earn income and organise society.

‘Human Reserved’ jobs

Gates said some jobs should be designated “Human Reserved” as AI and robots become increasingly capable of performing tasks currently done by people.

He said the idea was partly informed by the experience of caring for his father, who died of Alzheimer’s disease in 2020.

“My dad died of Alzheimer’s in 2020. In the later stages of his illness, he was cared for day and night by paid caregivers who understood him even when he struggled to express himself.

“He couldn’t always tell them when he was hungry, but they always knew,” he wrote.

Gates said his family remained grateful to the caregivers and argued that some elements of their work could not be replicated by machines.

“Something in the care they gave my dad was irreplaceably human. No robot could or should have done it,” he reminisced.

He said the experience shaped his thinking about which jobs should remain in human hands as AI and robotics advance.

The philanthropist wrote, “I believe that as AI and robots improve, we’ll set aside certain things for only people to do. I’ve started calling this domain Human Reserved, and it’s an example of the kinds of ideas we’ll need to consider.”

Gates explained that he chose the term because of the way nature reserves protect things that could technically be altered but are deliberately left untouched.

“I like the phrase Human Reserved because it makes me think of nature reserves—places where we could put buildings and roads, but we choose not to because the loss would be too great,” he asserted.

He said some occupations could be designated Human Reserved for economic reasons, particularly where automation could displace large numbers of workers who might struggle to transition into entirely different careers.

Gates noted, “For example, we may do it because allowing machines to take over a certain role will displace a large number of people who can’t easily change jobs.

“You can’t tell a 55-year-old who has worked in construction their whole career that they need to go work at an elder care facility and expect them to find it fulfilling.”

But Gates said economic considerations would not be the only basis for deciding which jobs should remain human.

Explaining, he wrote, “Sometimes the decision to make something Human Reserved will be driven by other factors.

“In health, for example, imagine a robot giving you the awful news that you have an incurable disease. There’s no technical reason why it couldn’t. Yet it shouldn’t.”

He said education and mental healthcare could eventually operate through a combination of humans and AI.

“The Human Reserved domain will evolve over time—for example, we should consider setting aside some jobs now and phasing in AI slowly over years or decades with a commitment to preserve some jobs.

“Some areas, like education and mental health care, will be a mix, with a human in charge who’s using the technology to extend what they can do,” Gates wrote.

Gates acknowledged that different countries could make different decisions depending on their circumstances.

He noted, “The lines will also vary from place to place.

“Some countries might insist on having humans take care of the elderly. But a country like Japan, which has a shrinking workforce and not enough young people to care for the old, may welcome a caregiving robot.”

He said the proposal raised difficult questions that would need to be addressed through public debate.

“Who gets to decide what we reserve for humans? What criteria should we use? How do you keep companies from cheating and using robots anyway? What happens to international trade when one country lets robots make something and another country doesn’t?

“These will need to be worked out in public as part of the transition plan,” he stated.

Gates backs AI, robot taxation

Gates also renewed his call for taxes on AI and robots, arguing that existing tax arrangements can encourage employers to replace human workers with machines.

“I believe we should tax AI tokens and robots,” he wrote.

He compared the treatment of human labour with the treatment of machines under current tax systems.

He declared, “Right now, if you’re an employer and you hire someone, you pay payroll taxes on their earnings. But if you buy a robot, you can usually write it off right away as a business expense. The tax system nudges you toward replacing people with machines.”

Gates said taxation could slow the pace of labour replacement while providing governments with funds for retraining programmes and social support.

“A tax would slow the rush away from human labor a little and raise money for retraining and a stronger safety net,” he said.

He acknowledged that critics could argue such a tax would reduce economic efficiency but said the wider social value of employment should also be considered.

Gates noted, “Critics of this idea point out that it’s not optimally efficient in an economic sense, but they’re not considering the broader value of work for individuals and society.

“And with all the accelerated innovation we will have, we’ll be able to afford a little inefficiency as the price for keeping people employed.”

Gates said the proposal was not new for him.

“I proposed a robot tax years ago and most of the reaction was that it was a strange idea. I’m still a big proponent of it,” he insisted.

He added that a robot tax would not, by itself, solve the employment challenges created by AI.

“Although it is not the whole solution to the threat of AI, it is part of a wise response,” he explained.

Gates said governments would need to ensure that any additional revenue reached people and communities most affected by automation.

The philanthropist stated, “However we raise money for more assistance, it needs to reach the people who need it most, including workers who lose their jobs to AI and robots, people whose hours or wages decline, and communities where the losses are concentrated.

“We need to start doing that work now so that the systems are ready when the need becomes acute.”

‘You have a chance to act now’

Gates said governments still had an opportunity to prepare before AI-driven disruption becomes more severe.

“You have a chance to act now.

“Before unemployment rises sharply, communities are hurting, and public trust has eroded,” he told leaders.

He urged governments to ensure that AI policy was handled across sectors rather than divided among separate institutions.

“You can make sure that your government handles the problem holistically, rather than divvying it up into multiple bureaucratic fiefdoms,” he urged.

Gates also called for wider participation in decisions about the future of AI.

He demanded that “It should include workers, college students who are about to enter the workforce, community leaders, religious leaders and faith-based organizations, parents, educators, and others whose voices often aren’t heard but who have insight into how the transition will affect people’s lives.”

He concluded by posing questions about how societies should manage the coming transformation.

Gates queried, “How do we ensure that the benefits of AI reach people who do not already have wealth, influence, and access?”

“How do we strengthen the social safety net and help workers and communities thrive even when they’re displaced?”

“How should public institutions adapt?”

“And how do we preserve our humanity through all of this?”

Gates said the scale of the challenge required a response beyond the technology industry.

“I rarely stop thinking about AI—not because I have all the answers, but because the questions it raises are too consequential to leave to a small group of technologists.

“Leaders across academia, business, government, and civil society all have a role to play in shaping what comes next,” he posited.