5 ms·

UBI will pretty much be a requirement if AI lives up to the hype and doesn't hit a sudden wall in improvement again. And even physical jobs might not be safe co

UBI will pretty much be a requirement if AI lives up to the hype and doesn't hit a sudden wall in improvement again. And even physical jobs might not be safe considering transformers are being used for robotics now as well and getting great results https://twitter.com/DrJimFan/status/1640399269051133952 https://twitter.com/DrJimFan/status/1640399269051133952 basically we are heading towards utopia or dystopia, it will depend if governments actually share the wealth created by productivity gains or if they use these advancements to oppress people at a level never before possible

Herval_freire 4y ago
There's no raw data on ubi in an largely automated economy. It's too radical of a change to know how well it would work. Communism, in theory, worked as well too but in practice there were unanticipated side effects.
- astrange 4y ago
  Automation increases employment. Technological unemployment is a myth. The purpose of a UBI isn't for workers whether they're unemployed by AI or not, it's for non-working household members like new parents, elderly and children. (Poverty is a household phenomenon, not an individual phenomenon.)
  - Herval_freire 4y ago
    >Automation increases employment. Technological unemployment is a myth. This is not true. It is historically true but every iteration of new technology changes society differently. You can't blindly rely on historical data you need to use common sense and logic as well. Historical data says nuclear bombs killed less people then cars. Therefore cars are more deadly then nuclear bombs. Does that work? No. It obviously doesn't. Just like you can't say that AI will cause a rise in employment. You're ignoring the common sense scenario. Can you even work out exactly what people will be employed as once AI takes over? Likely you don't, you're just being impractically data driven.
    - astrange 4y ago
      > Can you even work out exactly what people will be employed as once AI takes over? If the AI "takes over", as in it's a fully sentient agent, then claiming humans will be unemployed isn't technological unemployment but rather is the lump of labor fallacy. That's because the AIs are just more people. They're going to be customers (they need products to survive and probably want things on top of that), will have jobs (they need to pay their power and AWS bills or they'll get turned off), will negotiate pay raises that may make you cheaper, and you can sell things to them. If they're not sentient/agentic enough to be consumerist or want to be paid, then they're capital equipment aka automation, which doesn't substitute for labor and in practice increases employment by making labor more productive. All nice and theoretical. > Therefore cars are more deadly then nuclear bombs. I agree the #3 cause of death in America is more deadly than something that is so safe it has never accidentally killed anyone. (Except for the demon core guy and the people who got cancer from detonation tests.) Remember, the real world actually exists, and logic problems don't, which means logic problems are free to be incorrect because nothing is requiring them to exist in possible worlds.
      - Herval_freire 4y ago
        >If the AI "takes over", as in it's a fully sentient agent, then claiming humans will be unemployed isn't technological unemployment but rather is the lump of labor fallacy This claim was never made. The only claim I made is that you can't claim AI increases jobs. My opinion of it is that the situation is so unpredictable that people should prepare for both scenarios. >That's because the AIs are just more people. And unconvincing. If agi replaces labor it will be constructed with a singular incentive to serve it's master as the primary directive. It can be a an economy of slave labor replacing us. The situation is too untenable to just rely on your own hypothetical. Other scenarios like mine must be considered. >which doesn't substitute for labor and in practice increases employment by making labor more productive. Again over reliance on data. Your argument doesn't counter my claim. It's just regurgitation your original claim. >Remember, the real world actually exists, and logic problems don't, which means logic problems are free to be incorrect because nothing is requiring them to exist in possible worlds. So according to that logic we should make millions of atomic weapons and distribute it for free to everyone? No. Data only tells a story for specific scenarios and can function as a rough predictor for hypothetical scenarios. To refine predictions of hypothetical scenarios you need data AND logic. Blind application of data to all hypothetical scenarios is wrong. Remember the real world only exists in the past. A huge portion of the world is an unrealized quantum uncertainty in the future. Navigating the future involves using data from the past as well as logic. Your argument suffers mostly from being too specific. It doesn't address the fuzziness of the future and the fuzziness of the evidence/logic. You anticipate one thing playing out and you plan for that but realistically a good prediction and plan is one involving a multitude of likely scenarios.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
krapp 4y ago
> it will depend if governments actually share the wealth created by productivity gains or if they use these advancements to oppress people at a level never before possible Gee I wonder what will happen.
- ren_engineer 4y ago
  yeah I'm not optimistic, revolution won't even be an option because the rich will be able to deploy automated drone swarms and be able to detect and crush any uprising in the early stages before it gains much traction
  - yowzadave 4y ago
    But presumably if the drone swarms become cheap/easy to deploy, the would be easily leveraged by revolutionaries and terrorists as well?
shams93 4y ago
In the US I would say heading for disaster. In California the social safety net is basically broken and non-existent despite all the tax collected its still the same problem. They want a huge war to "thin the herd". Since Reagan basically you only have any rights if you are profitable to a corporation, if a corporation cannot exploit you, you're dead unless you can fall back on friends and or family. If you default on student loans they take away your social security. The level of cruelty there is unbelievable.
nickfromseattle 4y ago
> UBI will pretty much be a requirement if AI lives up to the hype and doesn't hit a sudden wall in improvement again. I've always read about UBI in the context of a national system. Any speculation on how UBI works with an international world order? What happens to the countries without AI companies?
welshwelsh 4y ago
>share the wealth created by productivity gains This is a bad approach. We should instead be thinking this way: "Even people working physical jobs can use AI to improve their productivity, considering transformers are being used for robotics now." Governments should make sure that everyone takes advantage of the new technology so we can deploy it as fast as possible. They should make sure everyone understands that using AI is a requirement to survive in 2023, and we will all need to radically change our workflows.
- Gud 4y ago
  Yes please. Make the government ram down the techno dystopia down everybody's throats.

Herval_freire 4y ago

There's no raw data on ubi in an largely automated economy. It's too radical of a change to know how well it would work. Communism, in theory, worked as well too but in practice there were unanticipated side effects.

astrange 4y ago
Automation increases employment. Technological unemployment is a myth. The purpose of a UBI isn't for workers whether they're unemployed by AI or not, it's for non-working household members like new parents, elderly and children. (Poverty is a household phenomenon, not an individual phenomenon.)
- Herval_freire 4y ago
  >Automation increases employment. Technological unemployment is a myth. This is not true. It is historically true but every iteration of new technology changes society differently. You can't blindly rely on historical data you need to use common sense and logic as well. Historical data says nuclear bombs killed less people then cars. Therefore cars are more deadly then nuclear bombs. Does that work? No. It obviously doesn't. Just like you can't say that AI will cause a rise in employment. You're ignoring the common sense scenario. Can you even work out exactly what people will be employed as once AI takes over? Likely you don't, you're just being impractically data driven.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > Can you even work out exactly what people will be employed as once AI takes over? If the AI "takes over", as in it's a fully sentient agent, then claiming humans will be unemployed isn't technological unemployment but rather is the lump of labor fallacy. That's because the AIs are just more people. They're going to be customers (they need products to survive and probably want things on top of that), will have jobs (they need to pay their power and AWS bills or they'll get turned off), will negotiate pay raises that may make you cheaper, and you can sell things to them. If they're not sentient/agentic enough to be consumerist or want to be paid, then they're capital equipment aka automation, which doesn't substitute for labor and in practice increases employment by making labor more productive. All nice and theoretical. > Therefore cars are more deadly then nuclear bombs. I agree the #3 cause of death in America is more deadly than something that is so safe it has never accidentally killed anyone. (Except for the demon core guy and the people who got cancer from detonation tests.) Remember, the real world actually exists, and logic problems don't, which means logic problems are free to be incorrect because nothing is requiring them to exist in possible worlds.
    - Herval_freire 4y ago
      >If the AI "takes over", as in it's a fully sentient agent, then claiming humans will be unemployed isn't technological unemployment but rather is the lump of labor fallacy This claim was never made. The only claim I made is that you can't claim AI increases jobs. My opinion of it is that the situation is so unpredictable that people should prepare for both scenarios. >That's because the AIs are just more people. And unconvincing. If agi replaces labor it will be constructed with a singular incentive to serve it's master as the primary directive. It can be a an economy of slave labor replacing us. The situation is too untenable to just rely on your own hypothetical. Other scenarios like mine must be considered. >which doesn't substitute for labor and in practice increases employment by making labor more productive. Again over reliance on data. Your argument doesn't counter my claim. It's just regurgitation your original claim. >Remember, the real world actually exists, and logic problems don't, which means logic problems are free to be incorrect because nothing is requiring them to exist in possible worlds. So according to that logic we should make millions of atomic weapons and distribute it for free to everyone? No. Data only tells a story for specific scenarios and can function as a rough predictor for hypothetical scenarios. To refine predictions of hypothetical scenarios you need data AND logic. Blind application of data to all hypothetical scenarios is wrong. Remember the real world only exists in the past. A huge portion of the world is an unrealized quantum uncertainty in the future. Navigating the future involves using data from the past as well as logic. Your argument suffers mostly from being too specific. It doesn't address the fuzziness of the future and the fuzziness of the evidence/logic. You anticipate one thing playing out and you plan for that but realistically a good prediction and plan is one involving a multitude of likely scenarios.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

krapp 4y ago

> it will depend if governments actually share the wealth created by productivity gains or if they use these advancements to oppress people at a level never before possible Gee I wonder what will happen.

ren_engineer 4y ago
yeah I'm not optimistic, revolution won't even be an option because the rich will be able to deploy automated drone swarms and be able to detect and crush any uprising in the early stages before it gains much traction
- yowzadave 4y ago
  But presumably if the drone swarms become cheap/easy to deploy, the would be easily leveraged by revolutionaries and terrorists as well?

shams93 4y ago

In the US I would say heading for disaster. In California the social safety net is basically broken and non-existent despite all the tax collected its still the same problem. They want a huge war to "thin the herd". Since Reagan basically you only have any rights if you are profitable to a corporation, if a corporation cannot exploit you, you're dead unless you can fall back on friends and or family. If you default on student loans they take away your social security. The level of cruelty there is unbelievable.

nickfromseattle 4y ago

> UBI will pretty much be a requirement if AI lives up to the hype and doesn't hit a sudden wall in improvement again. I've always read about UBI in the context of a national system. Any speculation on how UBI works with an international world order? What happens to the countries without AI companies?

welshwelsh 4y ago

>share the wealth created by productivity gains This is a bad approach. We should instead be thinking this way: "Even people working physical jobs can use AI to improve their productivity, considering transformers are being used for robotics now." Governments should make sure that everyone takes advantage of the new technology so we can deploy it as fast as possible. They should make sure everyone understands that using AI is a requirement to survive in 2023, and we will all need to radically change our workflows.

Gud 4y ago
Yes please. Make the government ram down the techno dystopia down everybody's throats.