Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reality

13 (68.4%)

Universe

3 (15.8%)

The World

3 (15.8%)

Total Members Voted: 19

[McTraveller]

Right that's exactly what I said: if you're "close enough" to UBI, you're likely to quit working.  So there is band where a large chunk of people "close enough" to UBI stop working, making that "close enough" band be relatively empty compared to other income bands.  And I'd guess that band is close to $10k wide, because that's basically what you'd get working 20 hours a week at $10/hour.

[jipehog]

I just don't foresee people quitting because there's a minimum level unless they are fairly close to that minimum level already.

The premise of the discussion was unemployment forced due to AI development and integration, which then argued would lead to UBI.  So the bulk of the change would be due to people retired into those lower brackets. And I believe that McTraveller argues that will result in something like this:

Eventually ending with most people in the bottom.

I don't really mind such "stratification". I'm fine being at the "floor" in such a scenario if my needs could be satisfied without me having to work.

What constitutes as ones needs is very subjective. A teenager who plays all day video games and don't leave his moms basement has very different needs than people trying to raise a pet or a family (and god for bid buy a house, especially in good place), people that are open to experiences and want to see the world and or experience life...

Also I don't see people working in creative fields graphic/video editing, high tech like programmers, or even in medicine like Radiologist being happy with going on UBI.. Do you have any solution for them? and hopefully it isn't from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Personally, I think that much more effort would have to be placed on job retraining.

[Criptfeind]

The premise of the discussion was unemployment forced due to AI development and integration, which then argued would lead to UBI.  So the bulk of the change would be due to people retired into those lower brackets. And I believe that McTraveller argues that will result in something like this:

In the scenario you have outlined here it's the AI/Automation that is causing this stratification via destruction of middle class jobs, not the UBI which is a possibly insufficient attempt to mitigate the problems of that scenario. And the premise of the discussion that I'm (at least) having is "I still haven't seen a proposal that suggests how UBI can actually be sustainable without resulting in an even more massively stratified society between the people who actually work to have a "non-basic" lifestyle, and those who are just sitting there at the basic level." Which is a very different premise in which the existence of UBI (for whatever reason it has been implemented) ITSELF causes the loss of middle class jobs.

[McTraveller]

I challenge the assertion that the middle class is eroded today in the first place - evidenced by the present-day plot of there being no "gap" in the middle areas of income and, in fact, most people are in the middle income brackets.

I grant that is a very narrow definition of middle class; it's not talking about erosion as measured by say home ownership, or disposable income, etc.

Historically technology has not eroded the middle class and has in fact increased it. The fear is that although that always held in the past, it wouldn't hold now because "AI is different."  I'm not sure I agree - but it's psychologically clear that UBI would provide more "force" to stratify than just "technology" alone.

Also thanks jipehog for posting an image, I was too lazy to plot and find an image sharing service to do it myself 

[Criptfeind]

That seems like a bit of a non sequitur. Whether or not the middle class is eroded today is not a direct answer to the question of how UBI would increase the stratification of society. It's a related concept, but not thus far an important part of this conversation as far as I can tell? Especially under your definition of stratification, that being "lumped into discrete groups" you're perfectly able to have a healthy middle class in a highly stratified society.

Edit: And I think it's not clear at all, which is why I asked you what mechanism would cause this. We've more or less already had this conversation, but I think it's clear that I disagree with your assertion that it's clear, at least to the point where it'd be a noticeable problem.

[jipehog]

Historically technology has not eroded the middle class and has in fact increased it. The fear is that although that always held in the past, it wouldn't hold now because "AI is different." I'm not sure I agree - but it's psychologically clear that UBI would provide more "force" to stratify than just "technology" alone.

I'd like to push back on that. Technological change can lead to loss of jobs.. And while I agree that there has been significant middle-class growth, creating the sizable middle class bell curve of the income distribution mentioned, I am not convinced it was primary caused by technological improvement. It can be argued that improved education is what caused that ( e.g. manual labors who picked up boxes and replaced by robot, can be trained to operate it), which is why we still see middle class bulge rising in the developing world but rather impotent in the advanced industrial economies like the USA.

I do not share the optimist view about AI being just yet another technology. It is a disruptive technology that affects everything and has potential to replace humans on scale that we haven't seen since the industrial revolution (not the third one).  And we can't dismiss concerns that jobs will "be completely replaced by AI are in middle-class areas, such as professional services. Often, the practical solution is to find another job, but workers may not have the qualifications for high-level jobs and so must drop to lower level jobs. [wikipidea]".

Also lets not forget that we live in globalized economy, where job can be easily outsourced (e.g. AI would create many low wage AI training jobs, but likely in the developing world), and the pressure of rising inequality (many people already struggle to secure stable, well-paying jobs with benefits) and the world economy shows signs of slowing growth and changing center of gravity. And I have no idea how these and other 3rd factors will affect things.

And the premise of the discussion that I'm (at least) having is "I still haven't seen a proposal that suggests how UBI can actually be sustainable without resulting in an even more massively stratified society between the people who actually work to have a "non-basic" lifestyle, and those who are just sitting there at the basic level."

Fair enough. I have no idea what that entails (will it be entirely unconditional guaranteed income?) it seem to me a question of income redistribution and one that would probably reduce incentives to work i.e. essentially what max said, why bother with a job if you can have a decent life without one.. that my 2 cents and I will withdraw from the pure UBI discussion.

[jipehog]

The Amazing AI Super Tutor for Students and Teachers | Sal Khan | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJP5GqnTrNo

The educational potential of AI is truly amazing, if only I had this growing up instead of the teachers we had.. I need this to be an actual product now and not just in English language in the USA.

[King Zultan]

I wouldn't put to much thought into that unitl we're at the point where the AI doesn't make shit up when it can't find the answer.

[jipehog]

Some people have the same sentiments about autonomous cars, though they are MUCH safer than cars driven by people, and steadily becoming the new reality.

Otherwise have you checked about the AI hallucination error rates? because there are already many solution to that remarkably reduce that to levels that I think are beyond human. Certainly if the AI Tutor in the video preforms half as good as advertised it would be better than all overwhelming majority of all teachers we had..

But have no fear AI is here:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[jipehog]

European Union attempts first significant AI regulation
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/the-european-union-s-ai-act-explained/

[Starver]

"ChatBot... Write me a comprehensive legal framework to restrict AI use to prevent abuses of it and by it"

[EuchreJack]

Apparently, the answer is: the Record Companies that own the music rights

[lemon10]

though they are MUCH safer than cars driven by people, and steadily becoming the new reality.

From my understanding the current issue is they are actually less safe then cars driven by people. This is most notable in Tesla (which disables the autodrive just before the car crashes so they can avoid liability) who's cars have a bunch of crashes.

In a decade or two they might nail it, but they aren't quite there for now.

[jipehog]

Apparently, the answer is: the Record Companies that own the music rights

Personally, I am skeptical about their ability to enforce. According to Boomy claim, they created "14.5 million songs — or 14 percent of the world's recorded music" in just weeks.. Such flooding of the market coupled with some appropriate search function would eventually push many creators out of job. Maybe the next DF soundtrack would be AI generated..

Overall I think it should be established the legality of AI using copyrighted material in their training.

From my understanding the current issue is they are actually less safe then cars driven by people.

Based on what? According to Tesla data, using accident per X million miles driven metric: Tesla car are 8 times safer than the average, and become FAR less safer when autopilot is disengaged:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Btw China already operates 100% self-driving cabs services. And the biggest barrier seem to be the usual cost and regulation.

[Maximum Spin]

Overall I think it should be established the legality of AI using copyrighted material in their training.

Sampling and remixing are protected, as is listening to as much music or looking at as much art as you want before coming up with your own, even your own take on the same style. So this is a solved question.