Ask HN: If AI results in UBI, will everyone stop criticizing AI on social media?
I think most criticism of AI on social media isn't because it is not great but rather because it is.
I think most criticism of AI on social media isn't because it is not great but rather because it is.
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.
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.
It might alleviate the negative implications for widespread job losses but the criticism AI receives is a lot broader than that.
At best, that would only address one of the big problems with it.
If humanity resulted in UBI, everyone would still criticize their fellow humans on social media. I see no evidence AI would be any different.
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.
... which is totally different from attaching strings to ToS'es or employment contracts.
Gosh, i hope some sweet day all those libertarians would realize, that government is not by definition bad but instead required for everything free markets cannot achieve (tragedy of commons, responsibility diffusion). And similarly, you to realize that you only critized goverments, without a UBI-unique spin or a constructive solution.
What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?
Careful, whatever you want to reply here, i am going to project it onto large private corporations immediately ... something you seem to be unable to.
> What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?
Then bad actors would immediately kill all the leaders of said government because they made their location data available. (you said 100% transparent).
Also there are too many definitions for "ideal sense". It could mean it's 100% allowable to kill, steal, rape, etc... Since in a 100% direct democracy everyone will vote for the thing that's 100% good sounding to them.
... then lets extend the definition of an ideal government to include the absolute monopoly of power, which is a hard requirement of nation states/governments anyway.
>... which is totally different from attaching strings to ToS'es or employment contracts
Yes, quite different, since government is a singular entity, and also a monopoly of power and a monopoly of violence. You can find another job, not another government, lest you immigrate.
>And similarly, you to realize that you only critized goverments, without a UBI-unique spin or a constructive solution.
I already gave the UBI-unique spin: governments with UBI control the very basis of the livelihood of the citizenry, including creating a whole large underclass with no other income than that.
>What if governments are 100% transparent and democratic in the most ideal sense?
What if everybody got a magical pony?
>Careful, whatever you want to reply here, i am going to project it onto large private corporations immediately ... something you seem to be unable to.
Or you know, there's a trivial answer for that, which I already half-gave in this post. You seem to believe I think "large private corporations" are fine, or I'm some Ayn Rand type - as if you can't understand any other angle of critique to UBI.
> as if you can't understand any other angle of critique to UBI.
I think i have to repeat: You didnt criticise UBI but gov. abuse of power. Which could already reach deep down into everyones life in plenty of other domains besides UBI. Is any kind of state service by definition bad now?
Heck, we could even unnecessarily complicate the issue by putting the UBI responsibility on an extra governmental body, neither state nor private. The true question still remains: Is this whatsoever organisation good or bad and what to do about it. Once we close in on that answer, you might conclude that democracies are in principle pretty neat but this
> You can find another job, not another government
gives me little hope.
Your pessimistic stance on goverments hinders you from accurately describing problems with it, which means you cant articulate constructive solutions too. And as a cherry ontop, you might even reject reasonable policies "because government". Sounds pretty Randian to me.
If we got UBI, our landlords would just increase our rent by slightly more than the UBI payment...