| ▲ | tokioyoyo 11 hours ago |
| A bit tangent, but is there anyone working on something for “what if AI pans out?” world? I’m not sure how to explain it, but if in the next 5 years a lot of jobs get displaced because of AI, obviously we’ll have big problems. Is there anyone working on analysis, outcomes, strategies and etc.? I think about it a lot, and would be cool to help and contribute. |
|
| ▲ | BobbyJo 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes, the totality of the private sector. Literally every company in US with more than 100 employees is trying to position itself effectively. The government is as well, to a much smaller degree, but the fact remains that there is too many unknowns right now to do anything concrete with any great level of confidence. We tried UBI-lite™ during COVID and inflation exploded, so unless the economy has already changed significantly, thats obviously not going to work. Humanity has tried central planning many times, and that has blown up spectacularly every time, so there is too much risk there IMO, and anyone who thinks otherwise at this juncture is just irresponsible. Markets are probably the way, but that requires dynamics to settle into an equilibrium beforehand because legislature is just too slow to react dynamically. I think the hard truth is, a lot of people are just gonna have to fall through cracks for a while if we don't want to mess things up more than we fix them, and I say this as someone without a plan B for selling my own labor. |
| |
| ▲ | generj 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Tbf UBI-lite during COVID was paired with 2 things: 1) massive handouts to business owners through forgiven “loans.” Predictably this had massive fraud, some of which was prosecuted but not much. 2) massively constrained supply chains which caused higher prices. I suspect 2 at least would have caused inflation regardless of the stimulus checks. It’s unclear to what extent UBI causes persistent inflation. Proponents claim the backdrop of a minimal income will enable more risky innovative projects which could increase GDP growth enough to counteract some level of increased inflation. | |
| ▲ | patrick451 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We should not treat this as an acceptable strategy. If we do not have a viable mitigation for the risks of AI, then AI should be banned from public usage, just like nuclear weapons. | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, unless political candidates and the general public suddenly gain 30 IQ points and become more collaborative than at any point in history, it's the best we have. The fact that we don't already measure/enforce outcomes for legislative actions should tell you everything you need to know. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | groundhogstate 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Many.
80,000 hours has been on the topic for a long while. Agree with the EA crowd or not, they have some thought provoking analyses and a decent newsletter.
The future of humanity institute has also been vocal on the topic for some time.
Both have a lot of material you could get acquainted with.
I know of at least one professional union in my country that is dedicating time and talking to political figures. I'm sure there is one you could contribute to. Or try start one. Plus the labs themselves, of course. |
| |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thank you. I’ve seen/read a bunch from the EA crowd, and think pieces from different contributors/labs, but most I’ve seen sounded very hypothetical with “yeah big bad stuff might happen, we don’t have a solution yet”. And the other side, “pause/ban AI” crowd, also sounded impractical, as the vested interests from governments and private industries will not really let it happen. Sorry for yapping, it might be that I’m looking at the wrong sources. | |
| ▲ | amelius 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why are they so invisible? | |
| ▲ | lps41 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | EA? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | eMPee584 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| yes, working on a big END THE MONEY SYSTEM 2030 campaign to get public discussion started about considering the switch to a cooperative commons/resource-based open access economy. open source everything, hack the planet etc.
why not make it the singularity of the people |
|
| ▲ | direwolf20 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The most important question is how to prevent the starving workers from banding together and attacking the dragon hoards of food and other wealth. I think the plan is automated drones with machine guns, and mass surveillance from Flock and Ring to determine who to target. Requiring ID for all online interaction will also improve targeting accuracy as we'll be able to target them based on their social media posts. Robot dogs from Boston Dynamics (armed with machine guns) are a secondary enforcement mechanism indoors in places drones can't reach. So they're working on it, and they have been for a while. |
| |
|
| ▲ | forgetfreeman 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lJif2LX3bA |
|
| ▲ | JCattheATM 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's not complicated. Just tax the corporations and billionaires a fair share and setup UBI. |
| |
| ▲ | testaccount28 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | or just pay the landlords directly and cut out the middlemen! | | |
| ▲ | JCattheATM 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | People need more than just rent, and arguably landlords shouldn't be able to profit to the extent they do. | | |
| ▲ | testaccount28 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | right, i love this plan, we are aligned politically. but until we make some change to the balance between renters and landlords, subsidizing demand is unlikely to help. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is very much so complicated though. The conversations about UBI in the internet has been around since I’ve been online. And since then, there hasn’t been a single large scale test of the system to see if it can be compatible with the current version of capitalism that’s ran in the most of the world. Even if I support UBI morally, there isn’t even local appetite for it, yet alone global one. And you’ll run into quick questions about inflations, every chart from UBI-lite era of COVID, and so on. | | |
| ▲ | MidnightRider39 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots Probably not the scale you imagine but there have been plenty of tests. | |
| ▲ | xyzsparetimexyz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The minute you institute UBI, everyone working a shit, low paying job such as trash collection is gone. You're going to have big problems if those jobs are not immediately supplanted by AI | |
| ▲ | singpolyma3 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "no large scale test" seems false -- there have been several? "Compatible with current version of captialism" -- the whole point of UBI is to create a new form of capitalism | |
| ▲ | JCattheATM 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It is very much so complicated though. The conversations about UBI in the internet has been around since I’ve been online. Polarizing doesn't mean complicated. There's people against it due to ignorance, greed of both, it's certainly not more complicated than that. > And since then, there hasn’t been a single large scale test of the system to see if it can be compatible with the current version of capitalism that’s ran in the most of the world. Because people keep fighting against it, because it's scary scary sOcIaLiSm. > Even if I support UBI morally As you should, there are no moral arguments against it. > there isn’t even local appetite for it, yet alone global one. I would think the majority of the population struggling to pay for groceries would disagree. > And you’ll run into quick questions about inflations, every chart from UBI-lite era of COVID, and so on. No reason to think UBI would cause inflation at all, actually. In any case, this really is the answer. You're worried about disruption due to AI taking jobs, but the only reason there is a problem is because AI will drastically increase inequality by letting rich people and corps become even richer. You want to solve the issue, you solve the disparity by making them give back their fair share. Like I said, simple. |
| |
| ▲ | jplusequalt 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | UBI: - 1. Will require a large increase in taxation. - 2. Will likely cause some form of inflation. - 3. Will not provide enough money for a majority of people to survive on. - 4. Has no significant political support in the US. | |
| ▲ | 8593376393 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|