Hacker News Reader

Comment by noir_lord | Hacker News Reader

Be interesting to see how fast we realise this and if that will vary by region.

Parts of Europe strike me as the ones most likely to lead the charge (the Swiss had an actual vote on Basic Income just recently) and many existing benefit systems (welfare systems) come fairly close to a ad-hoc de-facto basic income.

Assuming the basic income is sufficient to cover basic needs, I'd be quite happy (as long as I could afford a reasonable computer and internet) to just write open source software for the rest of my life.

The only reason I write any proprietary software is to pay the bills with that incentive removed I'd program just as much.

View on HN

First, the world needs to become truly globalised in terms of cost of labor. It's pragmatic from capitalist standpoint, and it also serves the interests of humanity (I find that these two are almost entirely oriented together, if we're talking about a swarm of competing capitalists and not one behemoth monopoly). But after the whole world comes to more or less the same cost of labor, this will begin to rapidly appear across the whole globe.

Here's another great piece on that problem: https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29ba...

Switzerland is not a self-contained repeatable model. Switzerland has incredible wealth (some of it ill-gotten) and extremely tight immigration rules.

Many proposals for Basic Income set the rate too high. A reasonable amount would not overly disincentivize people from working. So in your case, yes, you could spend much more of your time doing open source development, but it is likely you will still want to some commercial work so you can have bit more than just the bare necessities.

Why is encouraging commercial work over open source work something positive?

He means getting paid. The software license doesn't matter.

Isn't it also just a matter of time before machines are writing the software?

If that became true, I'd just switch to basic research. There are an infinite number of open-ended questions to answer in the universe.

If machines become better at basic research than humans, then we have achieved one of the key features of Banks' Culture. That's a feature, not a bug.

Whoa there. I think there are a certain, countable number of fundamental questions to answer about the universe. And you can count them with your fingers and toes. They are the fundamental constants, and they're already known to 3 or 4 decimal places.

Albert A. Michelson:

"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote."

After that, he lived just enough to see the physics giving birth to modern chemistry and electronics.

Imo the flaw in this reasoning is, altough we may know an aweful lot about chemistry and the physics of atomic and molecular interactions, the problem of predicting the folding of proteins from the sequence of amino acids is exceedingly difficult. This is why we still dont have custom engineered protiens.

This is an example of a highly important and interesting problem that is limited by computational ability, among other things. Knowing some physical constants is important but the macro problem is still hard.

The bottleneck in basic research is not employees - we already have too many of them - and we're already starting to automate lots of the research work,both the manual one(robotics in biology), and the mental one(lots of the data analysis in many scientific disciplines could-be/is automated).

Creating the Culture is some feature. Heck even if it was the result of a bug it would be the best bug ever.

For those of you who haven't read Ian M. Banks "The Culture" series, The Culture is a space-habitating multi-species confederation that has long ago made true general AI, concurred all ageing and illness and now mostly spend their time exploring the universe and trying to improve other civilisations, without too much meddling. Anything at all we can do to become them is a Good Thing.

The incentives for this aren't very good.

Programming isn't "writing software". It's "understanding humans and translating what they want into algorithms". I don't think it's possible to automate that without general AI (at which point, writing software is just telling the robot what you want).

No. Programming is easily hard enough that any software that can do so alone (as opposed to with a human) will be a human level AI.

At that point we just found The Culture and start to build space-ships.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com