The headline is clearly crafted to make you think that so that you'll click on it. The contents make it clear that he's really saying something different and much more aligned with your thoughts. He thinks that in a world where labor is less valuable, UBI won't be enough; the average person in a post-work future needs to have a genuine ownership stake in the AI compute that's making things happen, not just welfare funded from the profits of the billionaires who own it.

▲

biimugan 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A "genuine ownership stake in the AI compute that's making things happen" sounds to me like corpo-speak for "taxpayer-funded bailout of my unprofitable company". After all, if everyone has a stake in AI, and AI crashes, then everyone (not just OpenAI) loses their money

	▲	aggakake 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Now that you mention it! He's been big on bailouts recently! Socialize the losses ...

▲

tadfisher 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the average person in a post-work future needs to have a genuine ownership stake in the AI compute that's making things happen, not just welfare funded from the profits of the billionaires who own it

I've heard this said and can only imagine babies being born with stock options in OpenAI; in which case, there is not really much difference between your two scenarios.

Otherwise, how are you going to distribute ownership of AI compute, if no one has jobs to earn it?

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There was a study a while back in Germany which showed (https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/identity-and-wellbeing-how-re..., ht Matt Yglesias) that people in retirement are happier than people economically equivalent unemployment. People's understanding of the system and how they relate to it is an important factor. If 50% of the population understand themselves to belong to a permanent leisure class, who are entitled to simply go through life hosting dinners and grabbing drinks and taking walks in the park whenever they'd like, that's probably an OK future. The pathway from here to there is scary, and you'd have to think about how to manage the other 50% outbidding them for positional goods, but you could imagine it working out. If 50% of the population understand themselves to belong to a permanent underclass, dependent on the largesse of the other 50% to keep them alive, they're going to be extraordinarily motivated to burn things down. Even if the other 50% establish a generous welfare system, perhaps so generous that you can obtain all the same goods and services that you could in the first scenario, it wouldn't solve the problem.

▲

cyanydeez 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And UBI said by billionaires is like lube wielded by a rapist.

	▲	cindyllm 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]