Ask HN: If AI results in UBI, will everyone stop criticizing AI on social media?
I think most criticism of AI on social media isn't because it is not great but rather because it is.
But there is the anti-marketing effect: some of us saw the “Apple intelligence” ads and laughed right away, others were disappointed when inevitably it was disappointing.
Google has a new “AI mode” search button which is brilliant, but if I try to advocate for it people will confuse it for the trash summaries that have been polluting the results although often when you ask a yes/no question the summary gives the wrong answer and AI Mode gives the right answer.
Shoving products that don’t work up people’s nostrils mean that they’ll reject products that do work! At this rate it will take a year for the average HNer to realize that they’ll never look at a Fandom site or Forbes or see another chumbox ever again.
Say an artist can just retire on UBI. Would they be happy drawing whatever they like? No, someone has to buy it. If they make art that just gets distributed for free and fed to AI, they'd be pretty damn unhappy.
The truth is that "UBI" already exists in most countries, one could argue that even in the US already does, in form of food stamps etc.
Here in Germany you get housing, food and everything if you can't find a job.
In Brazil you also get money so you can eat.
It isn't as expensive as one might think to cover basic needs to people, as well, this makes them consume which makes the economy function well.
If AI reshapes society so most human jobs aren't necessary, UBI would be pointless as it stems from the existence of capitalism as it is.
I'm not preaching about communism, but rather a different economic system. How that economic system will be? Nobody knows.
If it goes mainstream in some communist country, it would definitely be less than what is necessary to live. It would also be a non-stop inflationary driver because the only way the government would be able to afford to give everyone the amount, is to basically just print fake money.
Of all dystopian schemes, UBI is one of the worst.
Instead of jobs and future, it gives total dependence from the government for the majority of the population, and total control - just attach strings to the UBI handouts and conditions to spending them.
Gosh, i hope some sweet day all those libertarians would realize, that government is not by definition bad but instead required for everything free markets cannot achieve (tragedy of commons, responsibility diffusion). And similarly, you to realize that you only critized goverments, without a UBI-unique spin or a constructive solution.
What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?
Careful, whatever you want to reply here, i am going to project it onto large private corporations immediately ... something you seem to be unable to.
Then bad actors would immediately kill all the leaders of said government because they made their location data available. (you said 100% transparent).
Also there are too many definitions for "ideal sense". It could mean it's 100% allowable to kill, steal, rape, etc... Since in a 100% direct democracy everyone will vote for the thing that's 100% good sounding to them.
Yes, quite different, since government is a singular entity, and also a monopoly of power and a monopoly of violence. You can find another job, not another government, lest you immigrate.
>And similarly, you to realize that you only critized goverments, without a UBI-unique spin or a constructive solution.
I already gave the UBI-unique spin: governments with UBI control the very basis of the livelihood of the citizenry, including creating a whole large underclass with no other income than that.
>What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?
What if everybody got a magical pony?
>Careful, whatever you want to reply here, i am going to project it onto large private corporations immediately ... something you seem to be unable to.
Or you know, there's a trivial answer for that, which I already half-gave in this post. You seem to believe I think "large private corporations" are fine, or I'm some Ayn Rand type - as if you can't understand any other angle of critique to UBI.
I think i have to repeat: You didnt criticise UBI but gov. abuse of power. Which could already reach deep down into everyones life in plenty of other domains besides UBI. Is any kind of state service by definition bad now?
Heck, we could even unnecessarily complicate the issue by putting the UBI responsibility on an extra governmental body, neither state nor private. The true question still remains: Is this whatsoever organisation good or bad and what to do about it. Once we close in on that answer, you might conclude that democracies are in principle pretty neat but this
> You can find another job, not another government
gives me little hope.
Your pessimistic stance on goverments hinders you from accurately describing problems with it, which means you cant articulate constructive solutions too. And as a cherry ontop, you might even reject reasonable policies "because government". Sounds pretty Randian to me.
Ah, here's the difference: You're considering UBI based on the idea that "if governments behave well and to the interest of the people, UBI is fine too". I'm starting from real world governments and their real world behaviors, not fantasy.
In the real world, total control of hundreds of millions of people livelihood via a standardized UBI scheme, is a huge additional government tool for abuse. And the extra reach and power it gives government, and the constant dependency it adds, it's a totally new game.
And that's not compared to some dictatorship or "emergency powers" (which duh!, can be more abusive), UBI would be a steadily available tool for low-burning abuse and subtle control.
>Heck, we could even unnecessarily complicate the issue by putting the UBI responsibility on an extra governmental body, neither state nor private
Ah, yes, like the FED for example. Controlled by government but also unaccountable when it's more convenient to those in power.
>Your pessimistic stance on goverments hinders you from accurately describing problems with it, which means you cant articulate constructive solutions too
Actually my pragmatic stance on governments ("pessimistic" and "optimistic" stances are for people unconnected with reality, of course the latter way more so), which means I'm not in favor in giving them huge guns to extend their power more, especially given their track record.
But if you look at the world around you, and think "it's pretty neat", more power to you.
In the real world, many dictatorships have formed without UBI. Yet you regard UBI as a certain step towards it and even pretend its a hard argument against it, meanwhile the problems root causes you are concerned about are entirely detached from UBI. You are simply projecting.
I cant state it any more clearly. You are a lost cause.
- There are valid concerns about the dangers of AI.
- There are hysterically overblown claims about the dangers of AI
- There is public resentment growing proportionally to wealth inequality. The costs of AI development means that it is being done by those who can afford it, people are suspicious of their motives
- There are people who feel that humans are in some way special, for religious or dogmatic reasons. There are many here on hacker news who are prepared to claim that LLMs (and computers in general) will never be capable of consciousness. As behaviours of AI's get closer to what looks like consciousness to some, their objections to the possibility will only grow louder.
- How a UBI is implemented is as important as it's existence.
- Many people believe that work is what gives life meaning. I think this is in decline as wealth inequality increases. I think increasing numbers of people are thinking that the notion that work brings meaning is conditioned by society to allow people to be exploited.
Ultimately, in the long term, something must happen. If AI renders a huge proportion of the population without work, then that will cause seismic shifts.
The distinction between UBI and work is the belief that you are owed a livelihood vs being owed a Job. If people who are no longer employed due to AI end up starving, there _will_ be revolution or subjugation.
If people who are rendered jobless are given the means to survive, they will want a vocation. If they do not find their higher needs met then they will agitate for improvements. One of the strongest moderators of public disquiet has been Jobs, it keeps people busy, while giving them a means of survival that has the potential to be lost. It occupies the time of the worker while making them risk averse.
Take away the jobs and you grant people time to organise and removes the risk of loosing ones job.
Once people are in this state there are not very many possible paths, Either governments will facilitate progressive improvement in peoples lives to give them meaning, or they will not. This is obviously true because it must be one or the other ( either A or NOT A)
If things improve, we win. If they do not improve, then you have an idle population with nothing to lose. The only alternatives are revolution or subjugation(or worse, genocide). Revolution becomes essentially a roll of the dice where there is a chance of improvement but just as often leads to subjugation or another revolution.
There surely are those who imagine becoming powerful by owning machines that can do the work of millions. I don't believe they understand the consequences that would occur should they reach that goal.
Then finally the thing that places this in the unknowable range, is we don't know if or when superintelligent AI will appear. Perhaps it will find a better way. It would be hard to imagine it being superintelligent and not coming up with a better solution for the crap we've landed ourselves in.