4 ms·
Article lacks any semblance of credibility. Not worth reading. The author is naively mistaken in what dictates outcomes. Incentives dictate outcomes, there's a
by than3 3y ago
Article lacks any semblance of credibility. Not worth reading.
The author is naively mistaken in what dictates outcomes. Incentives dictate outcomes, there's a lot of flawed thinking and wrong conclusions made by the author.
Much of the argument relies heavily on survivorship bias and painting implausible examples. It also completely neglects any basic understanding of what happens with economic systems. Most specifically, how UBI would solve the economic calculation problem (point in fact it doesn't, it makes it worse because there's no price discovery). So what the author actually is promoting is a rapid approach to all the consequences found in the economic calculation problem, though they fall just short of saying so.
This reads more like soft propaganda than it does anything educated or rational.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago> This reads more like soft propaganda than it does anything educated or rational. This eloquently sums up a lot of discourse on AI.
- than3 3y agoI agree, insofar that most of the discourse I've seen often neglects fundamental drivers of our economy such as the division of labor and has undue focus on outcomes that are less likely to come to pass, as opposed to risk oriented discussion which is key in risk management. There was a very good video someone posted not too long ago that covers what should be covered as an overview. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ&ab_channel=CenterforHumaneTechnology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoVJKj8lcNQ&ab_channel=Cente... Any engineer knows as soon as the rate of change exceeds the reaction time, you can't keep up and failures happen. In the case of systems, the larger the system the bigger and more damaging the failure. We're dealing with societal mechanics, so failures may have global impact.