4 ms·

I quite like Sam Altman's recent take on UBI being given a resource which has value rather than being given dollars directly. He was suggesting the people coul

I quite like Sam Altman's recent take on UBI being given a resource which has value rather than being given dollars directly. He was suggesting the people could be given "compute" which they then decide how to use. Though I don't deny this could be a loop-hole to create value in something like WorldCoin, my hope is that it would change the considerations of the people who have it. When we think of UBI, we don't often think of money as the resource, but rather as the thing people use to buy things. If that conversation changed to providing a resource which the person could use to earn, does that make the recipient more of a farmer or fisherman, rather than just being given a fish. We rarely think of UBI as cash payment as something that the recipient would use as an allocation to create something for themselves. Though I don't think this is a simple answer, I'd like us to think in these terms more, and Sam Altman has recently opened this window to my thinking.

bick_nyers 2y ago
The issue I take with that is that it's another layer of abstraction that can be warped /inflated/etc. Similarly, mobile games often have a "game currency" that you purchase to obfuscate the true cost of a purchase. It's easier to splurge with a card than it is with cash because it feels more abstract, particularly if it's credit.
lesuorac 2y ago
> If that conversation changed to providing a resource which the person could use to earn, does that make the recipient more of a farmer or fisherman, rather than just being given a fish. Tieing UBI to working pretty much is counter to the word Universal. Existing schemes which aren't UBI but are tied to working have caused a lot of problems where an individual is unable to work for some reason (possibly dealing with keeping access to the scheme) lose the benefits from the scheme and not cannot work as they needed those benefits. Although I think the larger issue is that whatever resource you need to have enough of it and fungible enough to distribute. Distributing just one fish to 300 million Americans is actually nearly impossible. There's a reason the stimulus checks were done through the IRS; it's pretty hard to do things at this scale.
- pedalpete 2y ago
  I may not be understanding what you mean by "working". The Universal is that everyone gets a guaranteed amount, maybe every month, which they can allocate. They can use it themselves to earn, or they can be paid by others to use theirs. Money is actually no different really, except that we trade money directly goods. I look at this as a layer of abstraction which provides a re-framing. I don't think we're going to get rid of money, and will money move to be an allocation of AI credits? Maybe, but I hope not. When someone is given $500/month, I believe the reaction for most people, outside of covid times when spending was a challenge, is, what will I spend this on. Given a resource that has an intermediate step and could be valuable to many people, the mentality may change to "what should I sell this for?". The person can chose to donate it to a cause they feel valuable, sell it to the highest bidder, or multiple options in between. That's my hope anyway, but if it was just dropped in tomorrow without the right social guardrails in place, I doubt it would work out like this. As far as scalability, with hundreds of billions being spend on compute in order to train AI, I doubt scalability of distribution would be a major issue.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    > I may not be understanding what you mean by "working" ... > They can use it themselves to earn, or they can be paid by others to use theirs. ... > Given a resource that has an intermediate step and could be valuable to many people, the mentality may change to "what should I sell this for?". Well, with your initial comment it sounded much more like you intended for people to get a resource (compute) that they themselves exploit to generate revenue (cash) as opposed to just giving people revenue (cash). Which to me defeats the whole point of UBI and is likely to be worse as whatever resource picked is in no way going to be exploitable by everybody or sellable for the same price as it was obtained by the government. > As far as scalability, with hundreds of billions being spend on compute in order to train AI, I doubt scalability of distribution would be a major issue. I guess with the covid stimulus being in the trillions, spending just billions wouldn't have the same scalability problems.
    - pedalpete 2y ago

bick_nyers 2y ago

The issue I take with that is that it's another layer of abstraction that can be warped /inflated/etc. Similarly, mobile games often have a "game currency" that you purchase to obfuscate the true cost of a purchase. It's easier to splurge with a card than it is with cash because it feels more abstract, particularly if it's credit.

lesuorac 2y ago

> If that conversation changed to providing a resource which the person could use to earn, does that make the recipient more of a farmer or fisherman, rather than just being given a fish. Tieing UBI to working pretty much is counter to the word Universal. Existing schemes which aren't UBI but are tied to working have caused a lot of problems where an individual is unable to work for some reason (possibly dealing with keeping access to the scheme) lose the benefits from the scheme and not cannot work as they needed those benefits. Although I think the larger issue is that whatever resource you need to have enough of it and fungible enough to distribute. Distributing just one fish to 300 million Americans is actually nearly impossible. There's a reason the stimulus checks were done through the IRS; it's pretty hard to do things at this scale.

pedalpete 2y ago
I may not be understanding what you mean by "working". The Universal is that everyone gets a guaranteed amount, maybe every month, which they can allocate. They can use it themselves to earn, or they can be paid by others to use theirs. Money is actually no different really, except that we trade money directly goods. I look at this as a layer of abstraction which provides a re-framing. I don't think we're going to get rid of money, and will money move to be an allocation of AI credits? Maybe, but I hope not. When someone is given $500/month, I believe the reaction for most people, outside of covid times when spending was a challenge, is, what will I spend this on. Given a resource that has an intermediate step and could be valuable to many people, the mentality may change to "what should I sell this for?". The person can chose to donate it to a cause they feel valuable, sell it to the highest bidder, or multiple options in between. That's my hope anyway, but if it was just dropped in tomorrow without the right social guardrails in place, I doubt it would work out like this. As far as scalability, with hundreds of billions being spend on compute in order to train AI, I doubt scalability of distribution would be a major issue.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > I may not be understanding what you mean by "working" ... > They can use it themselves to earn, or they can be paid by others to use theirs. ... > Given a resource that has an intermediate step and could be valuable to many people, the mentality may change to "what should I sell this for?". Well, with your initial comment it sounded much more like you intended for people to get a resource (compute) that they themselves exploit to generate revenue (cash) as opposed to just giving people revenue (cash). Which to me defeats the whole point of UBI and is likely to be worse as whatever resource picked is in no way going to be exploitable by everybody or sellable for the same price as it was obtained by the government. > As far as scalability, with hundreds of billions being spend on compute in order to train AI, I doubt scalability of distribution would be a major issue. I guess with the covid stimulus being in the trillions, spending just billions wouldn't have the same scalability problems.
  - pedalpete 2y ago