2 ms·

yes, UBI is the solution usually proposed but i guess there's a few problems. First problem i see is UBI is gonna be paid by governments when it's (mega-)corpo

yes, UBI is the solution usually proposed but i guess there's a few problems. First problem i see is UBI is gonna be paid by governments when it's (mega-)corporations making (disproportionate) profits thanks to AI and not employing humans anymore. Something would need to compensate for this.I guess a new taxes scheme based on the number of AI agents a company would employ ?

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
If you ask me? A very large consumption tax would probably handle most of it, as well as some form of asset taxation (eg. on land and voting-rights shares, in terms of their equivalent rental value). This would basically amount to a leveling function across society: people consuming less than the mean earn (much) more in UBI than they pay in sales taxes. Wealthier people who consume more than average would pay in more than they get out. With wealth being power-law distributed, the wealthy would end up paying a lot more. Then you just tune the UBI value to achieve any desired balance of equality vs incentive to work, while adjusting the tax take to control inflation. The megacorp wealth flows back to the shareholders, who eventually will want to spend it on something.
- oefrha 2y ago
  You think voting and taxation is gonna work if Altman and co. achieves and monopolizes AGI? They can have autonomous soldiers and weapons while precisely controlling information intake of approximately everyone. You only need be diplomatic when the power imbalance isn’t too huge. I assume in that case they will pay everyone a small allowance so that people aren’t too much of a nuisance and resistance is limited. As predicted by sci-fi.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    I think there are a lot of plausible dystopian AI outcomes, up to and including the extinction of the human species. But that won't stop me from providing my preferred policy recommendations for dealing with the impacts of unemployment caused by automation.
  - worldsayshi 2y ago
    The core problem is uneven power distribution. Shaving off some percentages of corp revenue will not compensate enough for the rapidly growing power concentrations. Giving everyone ability to run open source AGI night do a bit of difference but if the big corps can run 1000x more of it the power differential will keep growing. There's maybe an opportunity to make (A)I crowdsourced and find better ways to make our shared brain power and GPU power more powerful than the cognitive power of data centres.
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  >The megacorp wealth flows back to the shareholders, who eventually will want to spend it on something. This is called trickle down economics. >Wealthier people who consume more than average would pay in more than they get out. With wealth being power-law distributed, the wealthy would end up paying a lot more. The wealthy consume basically the same amount as everybody else in their day to day. They might purchase better quality goods. So consumption taxes are regressive. It is better to tax progressive wealth.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

If you ask me? A very large consumption tax would probably handle most of it, as well as some form of asset taxation (eg. on land and voting-rights shares, in terms of their equivalent rental value). This would basically amount to a leveling function across society: people consuming less than the mean earn (much) more in UBI than they pay in sales taxes. Wealthier people who consume more than average would pay in more than they get out. With wealth being power-law distributed, the wealthy would end up paying a lot more. Then you just tune the UBI value to achieve any desired balance of equality vs incentive to work, while adjusting the tax take to control inflation. The megacorp wealth flows back to the shareholders, who eventually will want to spend it on something.

oefrha 2y ago
You think voting and taxation is gonna work if Altman and co. achieves and monopolizes AGI? They can have autonomous soldiers and weapons while precisely controlling information intake of approximately everyone. You only need be diplomatic when the power imbalance isn’t too huge. I assume in that case they will pay everyone a small allowance so that people aren’t too much of a nuisance and resistance is limited. As predicted by sci-fi.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  I think there are a lot of plausible dystopian AI outcomes, up to and including the extinction of the human species. But that won't stop me from providing my preferred policy recommendations for dealing with the impacts of unemployment caused by automation.
- worldsayshi 2y ago
  The core problem is uneven power distribution. Shaving off some percentages of corp revenue will not compensate enough for the rapidly growing power concentrations. Giving everyone ability to run open source AGI night do a bit of difference but if the big corps can run 1000x more of it the power differential will keep growing. There's maybe an opportunity to make (A)I crowdsourced and find better ways to make our shared brain power and GPU power more powerful than the cognitive power of data centres.
theGnuMe 2y ago
>The megacorp wealth flows back to the shareholders, who eventually will want to spend it on something. This is called trickle down economics. >Wealthier people who consume more than average would pay in more than they get out. With wealth being power-law distributed, the wealthy would end up paying a lot more. The wealthy consume basically the same amount as everybody else in their day to day. They might purchase better quality goods. So consumption taxes are regressive. It is better to tax progressive wealth.