Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HarbingerDe t1_jegn35o wrote

What are you honestly proposing as an alternative to UBI?

UBI is pretty much the only way that capitalism can be maintained post-AGI job takeover. If there's no UBI, you have literal billions of hungry desperate people who will be happy to tear down the prevailing global economic system.

1

Nanaki_TV t1_jegopy2 wrote

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without rebuttal. Your assumptions of the future are not guaranteed.

1

agorathird t1_jegq0ky wrote

That's not a claim but the premise. This is r/singularity. He is echoing the original claim that *you* mentioned and wanted to rebuke. You have not presented a cohesive line of logic that satisfies an alternative.

2

Nanaki_TV t1_jegsmpp wrote

I didn’t make a claim in this thread other than pointing out how often UBI is brought up as the defacto solution in this sub.

0

HarbingerDe t1_jegsekp wrote

I will ask you again what you're proposing as an alternative Mr. Big Brain McCapitalism.

If you believe in free market competition, and there comes a time when for any given job there is an AGI that can easily out-compete and given human applicant. What is the alternative? The bold words are supposed to help you piece this together. I'm not sure how I could be any more clear.

IF you think capitalism is the ideal economic model and it should be preserved for the foreseeable future.

You're either suggesting that for the foreseeable future, humans will be able to compete with an exponentially increasing artificial intelligence (that can already rival us in a lot of jobs).

OR you're suggesting that such an AI won't come to exist.

If you're not willing to concede that UBI is necessary in a post-AGI world, those are virtually the only logical conclusions you can be making. Are you going to elaborate or are you going to keep whining about how we all use the word "literally" or something else equally inane?

1

Nanaki_TV t1_jegt7f8 wrote

I cannot make claims about the future I do not know. That’s the problem with having principles and building on them. If I propose to end slavery in 1800s you’re objection to “who would pick the cotton!?” is not a rebuttal. And if I did somehow have a crystal ball saying giant machines would do it—1,000:1 people will be out of labor it would be so efficient you’d call for UBI then too. New horizons will be created. What they will be I cannot even begin to guess.

1

HarbingerDe t1_jegwjgf wrote

>If I propose to end slavery in 1800s you’re objection to “who would pick the cotton!?” is not a rebuttal.

Typical right-wing / conservative move of, "uhh actually we're totally the ones who are against slavery... Yeah... It was us..."

The scenarios are not analogous at all.

>New horizons will be created. What they will be I cannot even begin to guess.

You are fundamentally at odds with the premise of the sub, this seems to be the biggest thing you're not grasping.

If you believe we're on the cusp of developing a self improving entity that is more intelligent, more creative, and all around more capable than a human at any given task then there cannot be any new horizons that an AI wouldn't better be able to take advantage of.

2

Nanaki_TV t1_jeh2wso wrote

Yes there can be. Simply greeting each other could be enough. Human created works could have value.

Oh and idk what straw-man that was you were building so I am ignoring it.

1