Is Universal Basic Income (UBI) really the solution to the AI Apocalypse? - Pay people to exist?

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

A lot has been said already, but I'll throw in my $0.02
UBI is often treated like a kind of moral failsafe, like a way to soften the blow if AI or something else disrupts the economy
But I think there's a much deeper issue hiding underneath
What gives anyone the right to forcibly take away from one person in order to hand it to another? That question tends to get ignored in the panic over automation

If AI really does displace most traditional labor (which remains to be seen), then what we would need is freer and more adaptive markets, not more centralized control
UBI presumes that people must be managed, pacified, or subsidized. But that's only true in a world where voluntary adaptation is already blocked by regulation, taxation, and monopolized systems
Instead of debating how to pay people to exist, the real solution is to stop preventing people from creating, trading, and adapting without permission

 

[Ibanez RG 350EX]

Instead of debating how to pay people to exist, the real solution is to stop preventing people from creating, trading, and adapting without permission

The premise of an AI apocalypse (not that I believe it will happen) is that AI could do essentially anything a person can do at far, far lower cost than a human being. Being "adaptive" is something a few people might be able to do in some kind of boutique "made by a real human!" industry, but there's not room for eight billion people in such jobs.

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

The math doesn't work out. Not even close. At $1 trillion/year in funding, each adult gets something like $6000. There's not alot of money left over for anything else either. If you want to come in and claim that there's really $3 trillion in revenue, wow... a whole $18k. If you want to dick around and kick out the illegals, you reduce the population a few ten million, not enough to make it work. To make it work, you have to keep tweaking knobs and it becomes less universal. For many on the dole, it'd actually be a reduction in what they receive, and once they find out they'd chimp out. Even asking about UBI sort of indicates your personality... the rest of us dream of having our own land, our own home, our own means to do and make and build. You just want free shit because you were too lazy to stop watching tiktok and do your homework enough to get good grades.

'Paying people to live' is like saying you're going to add extra corners to a sphere. It's nonsensical. What you're doing is, in a system that isn't just based on fake value (fiat), either admitting that your currency works on a Monopoly Funbucks system of 'we just accept it's worth x' or you're admitting you don't understand how value and currency work.

The part that they truly do not get is that if it's cheaper to pay someone to just live, then it's cheaper still to let them die and not pay them at all. The idea that the jews/illuminati/reptiloids/billionaires want to keep them as pets and pamper them is absurd. And if they weren't all mouth-breathing imbeciles, they'd at least have a vague notion that that must be the case. You can't point it out to them either, they just start muttering "muh pitchforks". Bitch, the last person in your family who owned an honest to god pitchfork was your great-5th-grandfather. And you're constantly whining on reddit about how no one needs a gun. These people will just die, one way or another.

 

[Ed Special]

I for one am rooting for a Butlerian Jihad.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The premise of an AI apocalypse (not that I believe it will happen) is that AI could do essentially anything a person can do at far, far lower cost than a human being. Being "adaptive" is something a few people might be able to do in some kind of boutique "made by a real human!" industry, but there's not room for eight billion people in such jobs.

That assumes that human needs and desires are finite, and they aren't
Even if some AI could handle every currently existing job at near-zero cost, it would just shift what people value and are willing to exchange for, instead of making human action obsolete
The idea that there is no room left for human contribution only really makes sense in a static system
But value isn't static, and neither is creativity
People don't stop wanting, building, or exchanging, just because some tasks get automated

To me the bigger issue is whether people are free to respond to chose changes, or whether they're locked into a system that manages them instead
If you assume people are redundant, it's easy to justify managing them
But if you assume they're capable, then the priority is to get obstacles out of their way

 

[The Blue Morpho]

UBI is based on a false premise that the problem with unemployment is people don't have money. Unemployment is the problem in and of itself. When people, and young men especially, are idle they cause problems and instability. This is an indisputable social fact backed up by countless historical examples. Double the problems and instability if the young men in question are foreigners or niggers. If giving lazy jobless niggers free gibs made them less violent and criminal then cities across Europe and America would not be in the poor shape that they are. But obviously it doesn't work that way, and the gibs do nothing.

So no, UBI won't work because it isn't actually addressing any of the real problems with unemployment, namely idleness and a lack of investment in society at large. It is a stupid policy whether or not AI is going to make huge swaths of the labor market redundant. People need work as much or more as they need money.

 

[browserbowser]

The part that they truly do not get is that if it's cheaper to pay someone to just live, then it's cheaper still to let them die and not pay them at all. The idea that the jews/illuminati/reptiloids/billionaires want to keep them as pets and pamper them is absurd. And if they weren't all mouth-breathing imbeciles, they'd at least have a vague notion that that must be the case. You can't point it out to them either, they just start muttering "muh pitchforks". Bitch, the last person in your family who owned an honest to god pitchfork was your great-5th-grandfather. And you're constantly whining on reddit about how no one needs a gun. These people will just die, one way or another.

The idea that there is no room left for human contribution only really makes sense in a static system
But value isn't static, and neither is creativity
People don't stop wanting, building, or exchanging, just because some tasks get automated

To me the bigger issue is whether people are free to respond to chose changes, or whether they're locked into a system that manages them instead
If you assume people are redundant, it's easy to justify managing them
But if you assume they're capable, then the priority is to get obstacles out of their way

These both lead into my point that paying people a lower wage with less opportunities for job growth corresponds directly to maintaining the status quo in a way that prevents any ideas of 'pitchfork-based wealth redistribution'. You pay the people at the bottom to do the thing you're going to need done at a minimum to ensure that your robotic workers aren't going to fuck up an entire series of [insert iterative process here] and they get the opportunity to get something a little better than bare minimum. The people who 'want to work' do so and even if it's mind-numbing, it's cushy and you have job security in that an AI literally cannot be trusted to do this kind of oversight work for the next century, probably, at a minimum due to the very nature of what they are. Unless we start running ternary AI or something, this isn't going to change any time soon.

It'll be what people think is functional UBI and yes, people will still exist that would rather have bennies than press three buttons every day.

Also the concept of any kind of forcible overthrow of this system is laughable as drone swarms will be AI controlled within the next half-decade. You're not going to be beheading neo-Marie Antoinette unless you've got some serious kit or a solar flare occurred recently.

 

[TheRedChair]

If My memory serves me right.... UBI and/or a form of it was already implimented by a mighty super powa.... The Soviet Union.

They don't exist anymore now do they... heh.

 

[The Connected Nose]

They don't exist anymore now do they... heh.

And neither do some 100 million Soviet (and Soviet-adjacent country) citizens. But that just gets hand-waved away as not being "real" communism, "real" communism has never been tried, etc., etc., etc.

 

[NoBueno]

UBI is not coming. What is coming is the 'death' of useless or problematic groups of people.

You can see this already with MAID, trannies, the encouragement of gang violence, and abortion.

Who commits suicide the most often? Depressed, dissatisfied people that could eventually become problems to the state.

Trannies - a group that has an extremely high suicide rate while also affecting the most autistic and intelligent demographic of men, basically infects people who would otherwise be healthy to society/culture while ensuring their eventual death.

Gang violence encouragement - Why are rappers who make music about rape, murder, and dealing drugs still maintaining popularity despite their music sucking ASS? especially in the past 15 years. The answer is to encourage the black (and wigger) male demographic to kill each other. You get rid of the low IQ morons that can't do anything without government assistance or potentially become foot soldiers for a rebel group. They also allow anarcho-tyranny, by constantly glamorizing the gangster lifestyle without mentioning the repercussions of prison or death.

Abortion - the groups that perform abortions the most are blacks and the poor. Richer and more intelligent couples are far less likely to have abortions than the lower castes of society.

In my honest opinion, I see some people try to say AI will replace everyone on one hand, and on the other it will be a tool to assist humans with their work - AI can only be used by people. It has no other use. So as far as AI goes, I don't think things will change much for most people except for white collar jobs.

It will be interesting to see what happens with women being less likely to go to work and the repatriation of immigrants with the cessation of illegal immigration. For the first time wages may actually rise, at least for young-middle aged men.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Only in part. Idle hands are the devil's playthings, society would need to replace useful work with some kind of other work and require it to retain UBI. For example, make people take philosophy classes or engage with art, preferably mandatory church attendance too.

 

[werbwub]

Government will likely assign the majority of the population to working in healthcare or menial jobs to keep them busy. Even jobs that "can't be automated" will be eventually. Jobs like burger flipping and vehicle driving is already in the process of being automated away despite them being in the "can't be automated" category.
You might say " Skilled trades that require dynamic movement like plumbing, carpentry, smithing, etc can't be automated" and you would be correct but there is a small issue, market saturation. There is only so much demand for trade workers, supply of workers will quickly outpace demand as automation ramps up.
Healthcare jobs will really ramp up as the average age of the population increases. You can make a self driving truck easily but good luck making a robot that can deal with senile people that shit themselves everyday.

 

[Otterly]

Instead of debating how to pay people to exist, the real solution is to stop preventing people from creating, trading, and adapting without permission

Human society is partly built on trading, goods, ideas, etc. It’s really deeply wired into us. I don’t see how this could be hammered out without really authoritarian measures. It sounds nightmarish.
AI isn’t at the stage yet where it’s able to do a broad swathe of things. UBI will never work, it’d be our death knell as a species.
Tech should be a tool FOR us, not the other way around.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Human society has devolved to hamr itself so that useless eaters could live comfortably, rather than be forced to fend for themselves like it has been since the dawn of humanity.

 

[FunPosting101]

Eventually, most of the population will be on some form of welfare, either directly or disguised as some sort of make-work job. The alternative is open rebellion against the state and the state does not want to have to deal with that shit and neither do their corporate backers.

For the record, I don't think this is a good thing, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

[cigint]

Your life means so much more than the amount of zeroes

Your life doesn't mean anything at all other than what difference you are making in the world and to other people. Somebody planting trees, teaching children or fixing roads means something. Our droves of shitpeople that just eat, shit, and zombie-walk around on drugs don't mean anything. They have no meaning. Everyone and everything would literally be better off if those people were just exterminated.

 

[𖦹Junkpop𖦹]

Honestly, I wish we could just jettison the concept of money entirely. Meaningless pieces of paper shouldn't determine your worth in this world

I agree and putting profits above all else has caused enshittification of a lot of things. Nepotism and having no merit has also contributed to it. Greed is a cancerous tumor that grows and grows. I wished we lived in a world where we could have that work realistically though.

here’s the thing though, there’s a reason why ai is being pushed so hard. I truly believe it’s for the further erosion of culture and shared experiences. Another way to inject more degenerative things into society.
These people want you pushed further into your own bubble by their algorithms. They want you to do more for less.

It’s retarded to act like AI is some innocent little puppy dog that didn’t do anything. It’s getting funded and pushed for a reason. It’s for a society full of more feeble minded retards. No work ethic, no hobbies, don’t create your own identity. urgency, quality, community? What the fuck is that? Live in your pod and eat the bugs. Own nothing be ‘happy’. The algorithm decides your interests for you. It’s already happened with TikTok. Look at the trend of trooning out, faking DID, or faking having Tourette’s that got big on there with teens.

I’m so sick and tired of this shit that’s been happening with both ends of the AI tribalism. At one point or currently they go “haha you loss ur job” and also have this mentality that the leopards could never eat their face. They can and will. The leopards being the corporate hellspawn.

It’s to strip even more autonomy from you. probably decrease the world population as well. I’m tired of pointing some of these things out and niggercattle types even on here pulling out key-jingle science on the supposed benefits when that was probably backed and funded by said corporation.

No nigga they’re not going to just give you the cure to cancer. Look at what happened with black rock and united healthcare and tell me that will happen with a straight face. I couldn’t care less about the protein folds.

the feeble minded bug men will insist that somebody with common sense and concern is a “Luddite”. Or comparing us humans to horses. These people who are pro-AI hate themselves and don’t even know it. They hate humanity in general with their pick me mentality for the corporations.

The days of being able to afford to get a house, buy a car, and provide for your family as an average citizen are over. The middle class is over. You will never be able to do factory work and afford all of that ever again. If you think that’s coming back at all you’re retarded.

 

[Writer's cockblock]

Very good points have already been made about the idleness problem caused by UBI and I agree with them fully. We are kind of already fixing this with "fake jobs".

I think, however, that there's an even more obvious problem with UBI. If you're going to pay people anyway, why not pay them to do something? Literally anything. Pick up garbage from the street. Clean up the local statues. Countless jobs could be getting done that otherwise would be left undone because they're not worth the resources required to automate them. We can even tell people to make themselves healthier as a job (lose weight, etc) to cut medical costs.

The only instance where I would oppose assigning a fake or menial job to someone just to keep them busy is when it comes to people who are exceptional. If they can entertain themselves in a positive way, why waste their time? Essentially, I am saying that I wouldn't force Isaac Newton to sweep the floor. We can give them pretend jobs like "personal research" or some other euphemism for "do whatever you want".

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute here. I think some form of well structured UBI is preferable to what we're doing now.

The history of human technology is to produce the same or more output with less human input. A large proportion of humanity used to be farmers. Now we only need a fraction of them to feed the world. We used to need legions of mathematicians to do long, complex calculations. Computers can do the same thing in a fraction of the time. There are undoubtedly limits to this, and I don't think AI is going to be nearly as impactful as the hype says. Doesn't matter.

We don't actually need everyone to work anymore. This isn't the future. It's already here. But we're still operating under the old paradigm that "having a job" is just a thing everyone does. Now that's great, if it does something productive for society, but that's no longer the case. Instead we get legions of HR commissars and grievance study majors. Bullshit jobs that contribute little to nothing to society, and in many cases are net negatives.

Now we can continue creating bullshit jobs just to give people something to do, or we can accept that we've become so prosperous that we don't actually need to do that anymore. This should be a GOOD thing.

But then what do we do with the people who don't need to work? Do we take from the productive people who now produce more with less? Is that fair to them? If we say it isn't, do we let the people who don't need to work starve and go homeless? I don't really see a third option, and we pretty much already do the first one with welfare.

I have no idea how to balance this practically and morally. I think it's going to be the biggest political question of the next generation.

 

[⚞⛇⚟]

Just because AI isn't good enough to replace jobs doesn't mean that companies won't try to use it for that. I'm preparing for a decade of shit, where everything is run by AI and consistently gets worse.