What pressure is there to push for any of these changes? I see AI advocates discussing the concept of UBI, but I can't imagine a world where the United States would ever pass this sort of legislation. I mean, congress can barely pass a budget each year.

If you are correct, I expect corporations to reap massive profits while most Americans try to find a way to survive in a world where they are obsolete.

I think this too is a kind of denial. As in, while some are in denial about the usefulness of AI, others are in denial about whose living standards are actually going to be uplifted.

And it's sad, really, because I think these two groups would make a great pairing if they could stop arguing against one another for a moment. They'll both be impacted about as much and probably have the same ultimate goals (to lead dignified lives).

But it seems these days everyone is more interested in Kayfabe and feeling like they're in the right than working together, so maybe I should just keep quiet rather than attract the ire of both groups...

I’ll be the first to call myself cynical.

> In the near term handling the transition. Jobs will be lost, careers ended, people won’t be able to reskill quickly enough. At the same time AI is an enormous opportunity to uplift living standards, but nobody has the logistics of this figured out.

> We need to figure out how to restructure the global economy. How does UBI work internationally, if the AI companies are taking revenue in the US? What’s the tax base for it? What does that say about international trade and protectionism? Do countries end up splitting into different trading blocks based on their level of access and legality of AI (I assume some will ban it outright)?.

UBI in the United States is never going to happen in time. If it happens at all. We don’t even get universal healthcare. I think people who think AI will be a net positive for humanity are also in some sort of denial.

In a different US political climate I would entertain it. If these frontier labs weren’t so clearly going after the money, I would entertain it.

LLMs are clearly a step up for capitalists so I just can’t see any inclusion of LLMs move towards more progressive ideologies.

Why should IP persist in a world of “intelligence too cheap to meter”?

I don't understand why this got downvotes - simply extrapolating current trends leads to the need to answer all of these questions.

My own $0.02 on the economics piece - every country should have a sovereign wealth fund. Governments should block market access from automated[0] companies until those companies provide equity contributions to the wealth fund for that country. This aligns regulator and corporate interests. Dividends flow into the sovereign wealth funds and then can be allocated locally from there - UBI, job programs, etc. Let different jurisdictions explore different ways to structure a post-labor society.

On the broader social front - I think a lot of lack of meaning discussion boils down to the overemphasis we have on your job as your self-worth. We need to realign our societal expectations - and people need to spend more time with their families.

[0] for this to work, I think we would need well accepted metrics for 'how automated' a company is - and that probably needs a 3rd party auditing industry.

Why do you think the AI companies are going to let it be a “we” kind of decision, and since it’s obviously not going to be a “we” kind of decision, as getting to this point certainly has not been thanks to people like you, what makes you think living standards are going to be broadly uplifted?

Isn't it obvious if AI automates your job away, the AI company is going to reap the economic value, which is going to be less than what you cost, while giving you a pittance as UBI? If you received its full value there wouldn't be any point in anybody replacing you with AI.

The only way to win is to wield the AI.

[dead]

Sorry, all the billionaires and their pyramid architects are too busy with the Install Planetary Overlord planning and logistics to think about any of that. But don't worry! Once they're done, I'm sure they'll put their slave super-intelligences to work figuring out how to humanely come up with a final solution to the challenges posed by the remaining uncontrolled humans.

To what kind of goal that an ASI might decide to pursue would "a quarter billion happy, healthy, free people" be the most efficient solution to?

[dead]

Hopefully doesn’t ever happen, since that’s one of the more plausible omnicide scenarios. I human like AI is almost certainly achievable without much research effort at this point, but we shouldn’t do it.

> "probably only 20% chance we all die"

Bad news for you -- there's a 100% chance we all die. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

What makes you think separate nations would effectively cooperate in this way?

You’re not necessarily wrong, but math proofs aren’t going to unify today’s brainrotted population.

Your 'serious' proposal is unlimited global military bombing campaign on civilian infrastructure by the United States (which is currently losing a war using the same strategy) to 'solve safety' preemptively against a 20% number you just made up?

And you accuse the 'other side' of 'suicidal apathy'??

You should put down the AI and do some self-reflection on how you came to hold these views.

No.

> We are now at the point where RSI is feasible

  What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

There are some genuinely insane takes in this thread on both sides but this takes the cake.