3 ms·

Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to b

by arp242 3y ago

Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to buy groceries with, never mind rent or any other basic needs). A large population with basic needs met and nothing particular they have to do is untested. I don't really know how that will end, but I fear it may not end especially well. Let's be real: no one works at McDonalds because they have a great passion to fry burgers. SpongeBob was a lie! Would extra income from McDonalds be enough to motivate people to do this kind of stuff anyway? Perhaps. It's currently unclear. I'm somewhat skeptical that large changes are afoot though; current AI systems aren't really good enough for most things and it's unclear what future developments will bring. And you can't automate frying burgers or stock shelves in the first place (well, not without huge investments that just aren't worth it).

Shadowmist 3y ago
I’d go work at McDonalds for a PS5 or whatever, even if I didn’t have to pay for rent and food.
- arp242 3y ago
  Sure, but it's not clear if there are enough people who will do that. And we also need to ask the question: what if there aren't enough jobs? Everyone without a job should just live off the bare basic necessities without entertainment? Or what will that look like? There's a lot of optimistic views about UBI, but here is what I think it will be like realistically: poverty. Surviving, but not really living. The bare minimum to not riot in the streets. This is how these sort of things have usually worked out in the past. "Bread and circuses" etc. As I said, I'm skeptical that all this post-scarcity everything-is-automated future will come to pass any time soon, but if it does, we almost certainly need to do more than UBI. A lot more. Sam Altman is mentioned in this article: OpenAI is built on all of our work. Whether that's "fair use" or "pilfered" is a matter of opinion, but neither view changes the fact that OpenAI takes the works of our culture that we all contributed to and uses it for private profits it keeps to itself. That's not really a huge social problem if it's "just" a company – maybe you can consider it unfair, but that's something else. But if OpenAI and companies like it really do eat the world as the AI maximalists claim it will we end up with a situation where an exceedingly tiny minority will have an enormous percentage of the world's wealth, all of which is very directly built on the public's work, and it's no longer "just" a company with handsome profits. That entire situation will be spectacularly untenable. So what do we do with that? The entire "OpenAI is a foundation for the public good" thing went out the window as soon as green bits of paper became involved (and of course that was going to happen). That's not the bit Sam Altman wants to talk about. "Silicon Valley philosophy" like this is usually only remarkable in how profoundly shallow and self-serving it is.
- anon-sre-srm 3y ago
  Go apply to McDonald's now then because I don't believe anyone sane would work a shit job they didn't have to simply for a trinket.
throwawayfrsbob 3y ago
Actually, Spongebob was (originally) a depiticion of a real-life personality; the type of person who is truly so sheltered, optimistic and naive to actually ENJOY his job, even though he is supporting an immoral, materialistic crab who has ptsd from being in the Navy and hoards wealth as a coping method.
DonaldFisk 3y ago
> Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI". True, but the problem is that unless it's introduced, with the intention of it being permanent, there's no way of proving it would work that would satisfy its detractors. And even then, if it's introduced somewhere and works there, people would still argue that it doesn't work in their country.
- anon-sre-srm 3y ago
  You're arguing for a no experimentation Catch-22.
dfxm12 3y ago
Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to buy groceries with, never mind rent or any other basic needs) You seem to misunderstand what UBI means. UBI doesn't imply an amount of income to keep someone at or above the poverty line (or to meet all of one's needs). There are types of UBI: partial basic income (which is what most people with any sort of political or economic power talk about, including the examples in the article, which includes Alaska's Permanent fund) & full basic income.
- arp242 3y ago
  It's clear that from the introduction it's intended to mean "unconditional cash payments to people so that they can meet their basic needs". That's a literal quote from the article. And this is also how UBI is commonly understood in general. If you want to use some different definition in some contexts then that's fine. But in this context it doesn't make a lot of sense to insist on your definition as the One True Correct™ one.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    That sentence doesn't suggest what you were suggesting, that UBI alone must address all of one's basic needs. The single sentence is also part of a larger article full of even more context. And this is also how UBI is commonly understood in general. Search google, search twitter. Look up Andrew Yang's "freedom dividend" platform. You'll see that it's not my definition that's in question.

by arp242 3y ago

Shadowmist 3y ago

I’d go work at McDonalds for a PS5 or whatever, even if I didn’t have to pay for rent and food.

arp242 3y ago
Sure, but it's not clear if there are enough people who will do that. And we also need to ask the question: what if there aren't enough jobs? Everyone without a job should just live off the bare basic necessities without entertainment? Or what will that look like? There's a lot of optimistic views about UBI, but here is what I think it will be like realistically: poverty. Surviving, but not really living. The bare minimum to not riot in the streets. This is how these sort of things have usually worked out in the past. "Bread and circuses" etc. As I said, I'm skeptical that all this post-scarcity everything-is-automated future will come to pass any time soon, but if it does, we almost certainly need to do more than UBI. A lot more. Sam Altman is mentioned in this article: OpenAI is built on all of our work. Whether that's "fair use" or "pilfered" is a matter of opinion, but neither view changes the fact that OpenAI takes the works of our culture that we all contributed to and uses it for private profits it keeps to itself. That's not really a huge social problem if it's "just" a company – maybe you can consider it unfair, but that's something else. But if OpenAI and companies like it really do eat the world as the AI maximalists claim it will we end up with a situation where an exceedingly tiny minority will have an enormous percentage of the world's wealth, all of which is very directly built on the public's work, and it's no longer "just" a company with handsome profits. That entire situation will be spectacularly untenable. So what do we do with that? The entire "OpenAI is a foundation for the public good" thing went out the window as soon as green bits of paper became involved (and of course that was going to happen). That's not the bit Sam Altman wants to talk about. "Silicon Valley philosophy" like this is usually only remarkable in how profoundly shallow and self-serving it is.
anon-sre-srm 3y ago
Go apply to McDonald's now then because I don't believe anyone sane would work a shit job they didn't have to simply for a trinket.

throwawayfrsbob 3y ago

Actually, Spongebob was (originally) a depiticion of a real-life personality; the type of person who is truly so sheltered, optimistic and naive to actually ENJOY his job, even though he is supporting an immoral, materialistic crab who has ptsd from being in the Navy and hoards wealth as a coping method.

DonaldFisk 3y ago

> Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI". True, but the problem is that unless it's introduced, with the intention of it being permanent, there's no way of proving it would work that would satisfy its detractors. And even then, if it's introduced somewhere and works there, people would still argue that it doesn't work in their country.

anon-sre-srm 3y ago
You're arguing for a no experimentation Catch-22.

dfxm12 3y ago

Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to buy groceries with, never mind rent or any other basic needs) You seem to misunderstand what UBI means. UBI doesn't imply an amount of income to keep someone at or above the poverty line (or to meet all of one's needs). There are types of UBI: partial basic income (which is what most people with any sort of political or economic power talk about, including the examples in the article, which includes Alaska's Permanent fund) & full basic income.

arp242 3y ago
It's clear that from the introduction it's intended to mean "unconditional cash payments to people so that they can meet their basic needs". That's a literal quote from the article. And this is also how UBI is commonly understood in general. If you want to use some different definition in some contexts then that's fine. But in this context it doesn't make a lot of sense to insist on your definition as the One True Correct™ one.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  That sentence doesn't suggest what you were suggesting, that UBI alone must address all of one's basic needs. The single sentence is also part of a larger article full of even more context. And this is also how UBI is commonly understood in general. Search google, search twitter. Look up Andrew Yang's "freedom dividend" platform. You'll see that it's not my definition that's in question.