Universal basic income to be trialled

[413x]

No different to to 1700's and the thought of flight was considered alien technology. The process is slow and gradual, we'll figure it out ok (generally speaking)

I think AI is very different. It genuinely has the potential to surpass us. Make us obsolete.

Unless you think humans have "something" (and many do) that can't be replicated unnaturally, there's no reason why the future of AI can't replace us.

There's nothing wrong with that, we live and die anyway. If we natural replace ourselves with AI in an ethical way, maybe it's just natural (or unnatural, lol) progress/evolution.

No down time, able to process (think) faster, have perfect memory, and instant access to everything.

Blows my Mind where we could be in 20 years. All of a sudden, global warming, some world ending war or other human made disaster Isn't the inevitable end game.

Its as fascinating as it is scary!

 

[platinum87]

Okay, it's interesting then. Would the government tax the company I work for to help pay for it, I then get paid a little less, but I'm getting the UBI?

I'm far from a finances expert, but if all of a sudden everyone has more money, don't things just become a bit more expensive and we're back closer to where we started? The money being given out has to come from somewhere?

Also, at the moment everyone doesn't receive the same benefits. Some need more than others for various things. How is that dealt with? Some still get more benefits too, I assume?

Well there is no details of exactly how everything will work in this communist UBI utopia, but if you simply replace the current welfare system with UBI, then you are correct, the exception its its worse for poorer people absolutely, as giving everyone equally £1600 is the same as giving everyone £1 or £1million

Which means yes, you need to tax earnings past that much higher, however what is absolutely true is that simply taking UBI and expecting to be able to pay for the basics will be completely impossible.

Wealth is derived from economic output, work more and more efficiently overall and the result is that things get cheaper. Right now the economy is not efficient, employment should not be this low, we have a labor shortage going into a recession.

No, because there is no state ownership of the industries. it is capitalism with higher taxes and a greater redistribution of wealth

What is important is the total tax burden not the technical ownership. The more taxation the higher the negative effects which is a spiral of decline.

There is only one path to UBI that works and thats with AI.

 

[Trusty]

No it very much is different. We're not talking about replacing horses with cars, or homing pigeons with GPS drones.

We're talking - potentially - about a total rethink about a) what we do with our lives b) what we value in life and c) how we view others.

The reason this is not similar is because this is many, many times more *fundamental* to our basic world view. Who we are, what our place in the world is, what we do, and why...

So you think AI is harder for the human mind than say WW2, or the last 5000 years of war, famine and disease?

 

[dlockers]

So you think AI is harder for the human mind than say WW2, or the last 5000 years of war, famine and disease?

War, famine and disease has been the only constant whilst humans have inhabited the Earth; so yes. New, technological marvels that will displace the roles of millions of people is much worse. The whole world could become like MadMax.

 

[FoxEye]

So you think AI is harder for the human mind than say WW2, or the last 5000 years of war, famine and disease?

Perhaps I don't really understand the question, but I'll give it a go.

Let's be even more extreme, then. What's "harder" - the last 5,000 years of history, or the challenge of leaving your human body and becoming a digital being in the network. This is obviously sci-fi nonsense at this point, but it's to illustrate that a single jump in future may be very much more radical than everything that's gone before it, combined.

In this case of AI replacing human labour, we're talking about a potential overhaul of relationships between people, employers, governments. A change in our values, and the breaking of interdependence between human beings.

It's like throwing out the rules of physics and bringing in a completely new set to govern reality. You see where I'm going, here? This isn't some gradual iteration between the wheel and motor cars.

 

[Trusty]

War, famine and disease has been the only constant whilst humans have inhabited the Earth; so yes. New, technological marvels that will displace the roles of millions of people is much worse. The whole world could become like MadMax.

I think you'll find most people would prefer UBI and AI than war, famine and disease.

 

[gingergundog]

Kim Jong was clearly a visionary leader. NK have got the perfect environment for AI.

I wonder if the robots will be modelled on the Korean Staypuft himself.

 

[Trusty]

Perhaps I don't really understand the question, but I'll give it a go.

Let's be even more extreme, then. What's "harder" - the last 5,000 years of history, or the challenge of leaving your human body and becoming a digital being in the network. This is obviously sci-fi nonsense at this point, but it's to illustrate that a single jump in future may be very much more radical than everything that's gone before it, combined.

In this case of AI replacing human labour, we're talking about a potential overhaul of relationships between people, employers, governments. A change in our values, and the breaking of interdependence between human beings.

It's like throwing out the rules of physics and bringing in a completely new set to govern reality. You see where I'm going, here? This isn't some gradual iteration between the wheel and motor cars.

Why are we changing the relationships between people? if anything we'll revert back to nomadic and tribal tendencies, with all basic needs met, we'll interact far more as a community than now

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I think you'll find most people would prefer UBI and AI than war, famine and disease.

Most people?

 

[dlockers]

I think you'll find most people would prefer UBI and AI than war, famine and disease.

Aye lad, the future of the world is a multiple choice not one of consequence of decision making

 

[FoxEye]

Why are we changing the relationships between people? if anything we'll revert back to nomadic and tribal tendencies, with all basic needs met, we'll interact far more as a community than now

Why does your employer employ you? What if your employer no longer needed you, nor anyone else. And no other employer did, either.

Why does your government do anything for you? What if you contributed nothing in any practical sense? Why would your government care about you?

We certainly won't all be nomads. What about the people who have, literally everything, and want for nothing? How do you view them and how do they view you?

What similarity would such a world have with *anything* we've seen before, in the whole of history?

 

[Trusty]

Why does your employer employ you? What if your employer no longer needed you, nor anyone else. And no other employer did, either.

Why does your government do anything for you? What if you contributed nothing in any practical sense? Why would your government care about you?

We certainly won't all be nomads. What about the people who have, literally everything, and want for nothing? How do you view them and how do they view you?

What similarity would such a world have with *anything* we've seen before, in the whole of history?

You're saying we'll have no purpose without a job? Would we not just create a new purpose?

 

[FoxEye]

You're saying we'll have no purpose without a job?

I'm saying it's not guaranteed we'll even fit into the new power structures that emerge after full automation.

We may be surplus to requirements. Who knows.

 

[Trusty]

I'm saying it's not guaranteed we'll even fit into the new power structures that emerge after full automation.

We may be surplus to requirements. Who knows.

Of course we'll be surplus to requirements, it's literally the whole point of automation and AI. 10x increase in productivity.
What? so we'll be killed off?

 

[413x]

I'm saying it's not guaranteed we'll even fit into the new power structures that emerge after full automation.

We may be surplus to requirements. Who knows.

When AI gets to a point where its decimating jobs both high and low skilled, yes, we will be surplus.

Not only that we all consume and contribute to global warming.

If a few very powerful people can survive, it's better for them to be alone than the whole world consuming resources and bringing everything down.



But the rate of progress means all bets are off. Maybe as a society AI would be limited to getting that far if everyone starts fearing for the future, and thier kids futures.



All bets are off imo,

 

[FoxEye]

Of course we'll be surplus to requirements, it's literally the whole point of automation and AI. 10x increase in productivity.
What? so we'll be killed off?

OK, we're all surplus to requirements.

But everything we consume, or own, has to come from something that is owned by someone else. Right now, the elites own most of the world. The means of production and the raw materials. Even the land.

In this AI-driven world where we're all surplus to requirements, what motivates the elites to provide for us? Out of their means of production, out of their resources?

They give us what we need, because....?

 

[Trusty]

OK, we're all surplus to requirements.

But everything we consume, or own, has to come from something that is owned by someone else. Right now, the elites own most of the world. The means of production and the raw materials. Even the land.

In this AI-driven world where we're all surplus to requirements, what motivates the elites to provide for us? Out of their means of production, out of their resources?

They give us what we need, because....?

As i said earlier in the thread, we need to make sure we get regulation and taxation of the excess productivity correct. We can't allow the wealth gap to widen even more, it's just the industrial revolution on steroids.

 

[FoxEye]

As i said earlier in the thread, we need to make sure we get regulation and taxation of the excess productivity correct.

But that also assumes that post full automation, the government itself doesn't have a change of priorities.

I think that's far from guaranteed.

I'm not expecting the govt to suddenly poison 90% of the population, btw. I'm simply saying, where is the motivation to keep feeding, clothing and providing for us, when we're all utterly useless - according to the current paradigms? This new world is going to be so utterly different from anything from history (as I keep saying), that you can't assume anything, really.

 

[Mrwong]

AI may be universal and produce huge change. UBI as a response to AI probably won't as each jurisdiction will offer its own solutions.
Nothing will happen overnight to could be a generation or more away. That is the sort of planning timescale I would suggest. Meanwhile don't panic and carry on carrying on.

World has two years to protect human race from AI, says government adviser​

World has two years to protect human race from AI, says government adviser

Rishi Sunak’s artificial intelligence chief compares situation to ‘January 2020 moment in Covid’ where ‘exponential’ threat builds suddenly

www.telegraph.co.uk

solved picture says it all.

 

[Stretch]

I think you'll find most people would prefer UBI and AI than war, famine and disease.

I think that very much depends on the terms.

Of course we'll be surplus to requirements, it's literally the whole point of automation and AI. 10x increase in productivity.
What? so we'll be killed off?

The question is how do we ensure resources are equitability distributed when the production of so much of what we need is monopolised by such a small group of private entities and the individual’s ability to bargain for those resources has been reduce to virtually nothing because they have very few desirable skills to offer in exchange for goods and services.

Essentially, you have a totally broken market, and there is no obvious solution.

Even nationalization seems like a non-starter given that ownership of most of this technology will be concentrated in a very small number of countries.