The comments, for me, are more interesting than the article, because they proceed to prescriptions. Guaranteed income(aka basic income) is the major topic of d

The comments, for me, are more interesting than the article, because they proceed to prescriptions. Guaranteed income(aka basic income) is the major topic of discussion. It has a lot of qualities that make it more appealing than present-day welfare systems in an attack of capitalist inequality, but the open question is whether it's a sufficient measure on its own. What I find particularly interesting is that the nature of software as a way to build a lot of value cheaply _also_ comes up. If software "eats the world" in coming years, then it follows that GI would become increasingly more "correct" as the way to give people a fair shake, since wealth creation wouldn't be predicated on having a large pool of private capital, but on pure creativity and social organization. (Within the "core" software technologies this has definitely happened - open-source has gained a weighty influence on computing, and the whole HN "startup scene" arose from low capital costs.)