I think most criticism of AI on social media isn't because it is not great but rather because it is.

If everyone got UBI, jobs went away, and everyone spent all day posting on social media, then people would absolutely criticize AI online. Without purpose, a significant number of people will turn to drugs and alcohol. It won’t go well for them. For a lot of people, their job gives structure to their life and a reason for getting up in the morning. Without that, they’re lost.

It seems like the real root of the issue is that people want jobs so they would feel valued. They may hate those jobs but it's part of their identity.

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.

No.

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.

If humanity resulted in UBI, everyone would still criticize their fellow humans on social media. I see no evidence AI would be any different.

It might alleviate the negative implications for widespread job losses but the criticism AI receives is a lot broader than that.

If we got UBI, our landlords would just increase our rent by slightly more than the UBI payment...

UBI would only pay for people that don't have rent/mortgage and is growing their own food and would only pay for half their property taxes.

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.

At best, that would only address one of the big problems with it.

Why would they?

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.

The thought about UBI is mostly "American". I understand this website is mostly used by people living in the US, but other countries and people have a very different understanding of... work and pay.

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.

To answer the question literally, I don't think it is possible to know. There are a lot of elements at play.

- 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.