Nobody's disagreeing with your latter line, just vehemently screaming that there's no need for willful harm.
1. Economic change drives social change. The political will to create something like UBI will not exist unless there is mass unemployment.
2. Right now we need people to work, in order to create the things they need to live. It will not be possible to allow willful unemployment until machines can actually do most jobs.
3. We don't actually know if 100% automation will happen. Past automation has tended to create new jobs, and we've maintained full employment at higher wages. We should see if this happens again before we start panicking.
We just have to jump ahead with automation and figure out the rest as we go.
Get that accelerationist fatalism outta my face. Just because you personally have no qualms with harming others in the name of some facsimile of progress, doesn't mean it's the only option available to us. Slowing things down through regulations, through employment mandates, through pleas for cooperation instead of immediate replacement, all of those and more are ways of gradual reform and adaptation.
We're proposing letting the organism (humanity) adapt to traditional work and employment being wholesale eliminated in a society that demands work for basic survival through gradual and continuous reforms as circumstances change. Your proposal is the functional equivalent of telling an endangered species, "lol get gud bruv".
We are not the same.
We've done lots of automation before, and we all benefited immensely. Just chill and deal with problems as they come up.
I'm 100% with stego-tech that I think we should address the major, glaring concerns that come with greater automation before that happens.
Because I care about my fellow human beings, and do not want them to suffer.
There is a price below which no farmer is going to sell, regardless of whether they have another buyer.
What you're saying effectively amounts to "come on, there's no way they'd actually let people starve in the streets! That's something that could never happen these days."
Think about whether there might be other things that "could never happen these days" that are happening right now, in various places in America.
In Victorian England for example, it would have been easy to grow way more food and build way more housing, the government used violence to prevent it to enforce property rights of huge landowners (that then lost anyway, well, except the royal family of course)
>People starving en masse [...] despite there being plentiful food
Not "despite there being plentiful food production capacity". No, it has never happened that people starved in great numbers while the food stores were replete. That's a fantastical scenario. Famines only happen when there is no food, or no food nearby. Nature abhors a vacuum, so if you have hungry people on one side of a wall and food on the other, the wall will tend to become permeable until equilibrium is achieved. Money and violence (or aversion to it) are not factors in that equation.
We’ve never seen anything remotely close to this kind of upheaval. This kind of techno-optimism makes sense in the very young, but seems painfully naive once you’ve been around the block a bunch of times.
There are no adults in the room driving this. There’s weird ultra elite people driving this forward with their competitive megalomaniacal egos. And we’re stuck in a game theoretic landscape where it’s effectively an inevitable race to a max AI future. None of this is a recipe for a stable or prosperous future.
If this wild accelerated future ends up being a utopia, I’ll be jazzed to eat my words. I just haven’t seen any utopias unfold in my life, and I’m skeptical of those who tell me to chill and embrace the chaos.
Look, I've got enough things challenging my actual faith that I just cannot deal with piling on more so that the pro-AI camps don't have to do some critical thinking or basic empathy.
Those with the means have an obligation to help those without. It's basic cooperation. It's how humanity made it this far.
I bet that has been said hundreds of times already through history.
I agree with the other poster, this will most likely be a good thing for mankind overall. I'm excited for the future.
Be careful not to create a permanent future of mandatory makework.
Simple.
Nobody "mandates" work to survive right now. But we do have a system where everything is owned by somebody, and ownership tends to concentrate. You can convince people to give you stuff they own (or money, which stands in for stuff) by doing work. The risk is that nobody will need your work, so you won't be able to convince them to give you any stuff, ownership will concentrate even more, and you will end up with nothing.
If Those In Charge require that "owners" continue to give you stuff for work that they don't need, that crude patch still doesn't provide you with any other way to get stuff. Which means you have to keep doing this useless work forever.
It's not about "don't mandate work". It's about fundamental change to the entire system.