4 ms·

> the path we take depends greatly on the adoption of an unconditional, universal basic income as a steadily rising AI dividend. In a lot of western countries,

by chii 4y ago

> the path we take depends greatly on the adoption of an unconditional, universal basic income as a steadily rising AI dividend. In a lot of western countries, there's already a tax system, from which welfare is distributed. It's arguable whether it is sufficient, but it is currently a good enough system. UBI, in my opinion, fails because it disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative. It makes it so that there's zero risk in consuming more than you produce. The only circumstance in which this is allowable must only be when there's absolutely zero scarcity anywhere (e.g., humanity achieves near-infinite, free energy). We are nowhere near that.

jtchang 4y ago
> disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative People who are desperate are generally quite incentivized. They want to get out of their current situation. Being innovative does not require someone to be desperate. Only circumstance? How about when people are looking to live a basic human existence but are unable to find a job?
- poslathian 4y ago
  I think it’s way more likely that being desperate prevents you from innovating. That’s why people support the UBI… Desperate people get myopic and risk averse. Stress focuses you on the next step at the expense of the long view. If escaping your pattern requires a longer term plan you are stuck. You might not even see the loop you are in anyway. Isn’t that literally the poverty trap?
poslathian 4y ago
That last bar seems way too high. UBI might become low enough to be practical with a mix of changing attitudes around living “the bare minimum” and motivation to fix absurd expenses when possible. Living in a dorm room in a rust belt town with a cafeteria and 1940s-level clinic might look less dystopian when it’s the totally free option. Get that level low enough and you can expect most people can actually succeed in creating about that much in value because it’s absurdly low and any person would struggle to create a hard 0. Even without UBI, if it were legal, I think an ultra cheap lifestyle option would be a popular niche. Machines can easily support a 19th century living standard for almost nothing.
BugsJustFindMe 4y ago
> it disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative There are plausible positions against UBI[0], but this is not one of them. The entire history of innovation has come from people with enough resources and time to freely sit and contemplate and tinker and build elaborate contrivances for fun and curiosity. Desperation is not a valuable factor. The extreme contrary is so blatantly clearly true that the authenticity of that train of thought beggars belief. Someone starving to death in a gutter desperate for shelter and a meal didn't invent calculus, the printing press, electricity, cars, computers, telephones, textiles, airplanes, rockets, antibiotics, vaccines, anesthesia, mechanical refrigeration, cameras, soap, pre-sliced bread, salt iodization, next day delivery, dynamite, microwave ovens, organ transplants, weather balloons, satellites, lasers, submarines, and factory canned beans. Those things were developed by people who had comfortable lives with room for curiosity and exploration and a clear financial runway. Comfort is demonstrably more relevant to invention than desperation will ever be. [0] - One could argue, for instance, that it will be very difficult for UBI to not just make rent increases in desirable areas soak up the entirety of the surrounding outlay without a slew of other policies, as property owners would just see more milkshake available to suck up through their very long straws. (A common counterargument is that people would suddenly be free to move to undesirable areas with lower cost of living, which is true but ignores the whole "desirable" vs "undesirable" part.)
andrekandre 4y ago
> disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative. any good examples of the desperate making (meaningful) innovations?
gloryjulio 4y ago
> UBI, in my opinion, fails because it disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative. I thought it was the opposite? If you look at the human history, most of the progresses come from the ppl who can afford to do try something else.

by chii 4y ago

jtchang 4y ago

> disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative People who are desperate are generally quite incentivized. They want to get out of their current situation. Being innovative does not require someone to be desperate. Only circumstance? How about when people are looking to live a basic human existence but are unable to find a job?

poslathian 4y ago
I think it’s way more likely that being desperate prevents you from innovating. That’s why people support the UBI… Desperate people get myopic and risk averse. Stress focuses you on the next step at the expense of the long view. If escaping your pattern requires a longer term plan you are stuck. You might not even see the loop you are in anyway. Isn’t that literally the poverty trap?

poslathian 4y ago

That last bar seems way too high. UBI might become low enough to be practical with a mix of changing attitudes around living “the bare minimum” and motivation to fix absurd expenses when possible. Living in a dorm room in a rust belt town with a cafeteria and 1940s-level clinic might look less dystopian when it’s the totally free option. Get that level low enough and you can expect most people can actually succeed in creating about that much in value because it’s absurdly low and any person would struggle to create a hard 0. Even without UBI, if it were legal, I think an ultra cheap lifestyle option would be a popular niche. Machines can easily support a 19th century living standard for almost nothing.

BugsJustFindMe 4y ago

> it disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative There are plausible positions against UBI[0], but this is not one of them. The entire history of innovation has come from people with enough resources and time to freely sit and contemplate and tinker and build elaborate contrivances for fun and curiosity. Desperation is not a valuable factor. The extreme contrary is so blatantly clearly true that the authenticity of that train of thought beggars belief. Someone starving to death in a gutter desperate for shelter and a meal didn't invent calculus, the printing press, electricity, cars, computers, telephones, textiles, airplanes, rockets, antibiotics, vaccines, anesthesia, mechanical refrigeration, cameras, soap, pre-sliced bread, salt iodization, next day delivery, dynamite, microwave ovens, organ transplants, weather balloons, satellites, lasers, submarines, and factory canned beans. Those things were developed by people who had comfortable lives with room for curiosity and exploration and a clear financial runway. Comfort is demonstrably more relevant to invention than desperation will ever be. [0] - One could argue, for instance, that it will be very difficult for UBI to not just make rent increases in desirable areas soak up the entirety of the surrounding outlay without a slew of other policies, as property owners would just see more milkshake available to suck up through their very long straws. (A common counterargument is that people would suddenly be free to move to undesirable areas with lower cost of living, which is true but ignores the whole "desirable" vs "undesirable" part.)

andrekandre 4y ago

> disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative. any good examples of the desperate making (meaningful) innovations?

gloryjulio 4y ago

> UBI, in my opinion, fails because it disincentivizes the desperate from becoming innovative. I thought it was the opposite? If you look at the human history, most of the progresses come from the ppl who can afford to do try something else.