There has to be UBI for A(G)I. Period.

The math doesn’t work for UBI at scale. Unless there’s a 99% tax on the 1%. And how likely is that?

What doesn't work about the math? There are many alternate taxation schemes and strategies that can be tried, such as increasing VAT on certain products, adjusting tax brackets to income changes, higher capital gains taxes on investments, and making tax evasion more difficult.

Don’t you think if it were possible for governments to gain multiples more tax revenue, they would do it already?

Taxes are competitive. If you have extremely high taxes, then the businesses that can move out will move out, leaving a smaller tax base and requiring you to raise taxes even more in a death spiral.

Possibly, but depending on the level of budgetary entrenchment it would prove difficult for some governments. In any case, a staged roll-out is more likely to succeed, with many hurdles along the way.

It's worth repeating that doing nothing increases overall societal costs if large parts of the population become unemployed, whether due to lower statewide income taxes, increased welfare costs, people resorting to grey collar work, and other secondary effects from increased displacement (lower consumer spending, rentals sitting empty, health epidemics, increased crime, etc.). UBI does not have to be a blanket instrument either: rather than income, we can focus on making certain goods and services universally available, such as access to food surpluses that would otherwise be overturned or basic internet access to enable people to remain connected without expensive contracts.

A solution may even exist beyond taxation: making reschooling and job pivoting more accepted within industry, lowering admission costs to tertiary education, or guaranteeing placement of employees when let go on account of automation or cost-cutting. What way the pendulum will swing remains to be seen.

Those corporations still want access to the US / EU / etc. customers so if they move elsewhere to dodge taxes you need to increase tariffs to compensate or deny them access to the market entirely. Those businesses are not irreplacable and they are worth nothing without customers.

No, of course they wouldn't. A politician cares far more about protecting their own wealth than increasing the size of some government department budget.

They don't get to keep the tax revenue you know.

It definitely can work… it depends on the size of ubi and how creative we get. We could for example just say that banks no longer get to do 10-1 fractional reserve banking and instead all the free money gets distributed to their customers accounts. And do a cap and trade carbon system with auctions where all the revenue goes to ubi. And all the revenue from spectrum auctions. And repurposing some existing spending. And printing a little more money. And congestion pricing. Etc, etc…

> banks no longer get to do 10-1 fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking is pretty much an urban myth. Banks create money when they make commercial loans. The Bank of England explains it quite nicely here:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-...

What about socialized housing, food, and health care then?

Socialize the essentials, let people work for the non-essentials.

If there isn't enough work to go around for people who want more than a substistence living, start reducing the definition of "full-time" until there is. If only 50% of working aged people can find work, redefine full-time as 24 hours/week

It just balances out that fact that ai is trained on the output of people in the first place.

> There has to be UBI for A(G)I. Period.

There won't be UBI, period. Though I could see a future where obsolete people are warehoused in sex-segregated poor houses until they die out, if it's determined that their freedom is threat to stability.

So many people claim that. The advent of AI means they will not need to work.

I just don't see it. They will need a job, they just won't be able to find one. It is not a utopia, it is a disaster.

I am not a software engineer. When (for my work) I/we need a decent chunk of development done, we get the pros.

BUT, sometimes I want something that will automate the fudge out of my PC (imagine command prompt on overdrive). I usually DDG for the solution and end up in some 10yo solution in StackExchange, which doesn't do the thing.

My friends have all forgotten their DOS skills.. so I turn to ChatGPT and boom! I get me 2 paragraphs script in 30secs.

Do I hire devs? Hell yeah and we pay well, and we will continue to do so for many years. Do I use ChatGPT for the small (personal) stuff? Hell yeah too.

Now, if a company wants to outsource everything to an LLM/AI then I wish them the best of luck, coz when something will break (and oh IT WILL), Tthe contractor they screwed over should charge them x50!!!!

Definitely agree, LLMs are only as useful as the person interpreting and implementing the output; if someone doesn't have enough knowledge or context about the thing they are trying to solve/create then copy & pasting blindly while asking the wrong questions will lead projects to disaster.

I have witnessed this firsthand when I dove into the deep end on something over my head, GPT-4 Code Interpreter went into an error loop and I had to learn all of the background knowledge I was foolishly trying to avoid.

For software devs AI will mostly be a golden goose because they can leverage it to full extend to increase their portfolio of solutions they can sell.

> Tthe contractor they screwed over should charge them x50!!!!

IT already does this after they were outsourced. They build up IT companies that take at least 3 times as much for consultation and you still need to employ local IT that actually implements the solutions. And their wage also doubled as well.

Yes, of course, I meant without AI.