Sam Altman's universal basic income experiment reveals benefits and limitations in addressing AI job losses

[Rob5162011]

I don't know why the idea of UBI is so convoluted. It seems simple to me.

If you want a large study of what UBI does, start a nationwide lottery with a prize of $1,000 per month. Then follow up. Do one for $1,000 a month, $2,000, or whatever. You could also start interviewing existing lottery winners.

It seems to me if you do a thought experiment and imagine that all of the work tomorrow was automated but everyone still received the same money as if they were still working, wouldn't the economy still work the way it does right now? Except people no longer have to work. So somewhere on this scale it can work.

perhaps as people can do more full time work needs to be scaled back to 30 yours a week or something like that

 

[Spyderphyre]

Raising the "floor" by $1000 just means that your baseline expenses raise up by $1000. It doesnt fix anything. If you give everyone $1000, you are merely devaluing your currency by $1000 per capita. Do that every month, and you end up with hyperinflation. The people with bad jobs or no jobs will continue to be in poverty, the only difference will be the cost of everything surges upwards.

This may be true under current market conditions, but UBI is meant to maintain buying power when income is lost due to automation. It's a nearly net zero increase in money, so inflationary pressures are no greater than what we see under nominal conditions.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

UBI will be another tax and new tax codes will have to be written. Will it be regressive in which the poor will not benefit much, or will it be progressive where the wealthy will pay more into it but have additional bureaucracy. Universality means everyone being paid including the wealthy. And we know who will be drafting the new tax codes.

 

[human7]

I guess I was thinking longer-term, like AI replaces all jobs and they just give everyone $1,000 a month because there are no jobs anywhere you can earn any money at all. Personally, I don't want my career to be replaced by AI if it means I have to go work a minimum wage job instead. I don't think anyone would be happy about that. It sounds terrible. They can let the robots have those jobs too as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed, and this is the real issue: there's no upper limit to how advanced AI could become, it could be no different than artificial humans one day (whether they have a soul can be debated by the the theologians and philosophers, but whether they can take on any job that humans have ever held is simply a matter of practically doing it). In such a world, what is there for us to do? I suspect the transition to such a world, if it comes to pass, would at least go through the human augmentation phase, with strife not too different from that depicted in Deus Ex. Perhaps in the end we go extinct, or maybe we find non-jobs which are somehow satisfying (I can't really imagine that, but perhaps that is a limitation of the culture and values that I live in), or maybe something else entirely. I don't know.

UBI can address some of the issues, especially in transition, but like the researchers said, it's no silver bullet.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Anyone who considers roads and parks "welfare" is beyond rational debate. As for the idea that anyone is advocating to illegalize voluntary charity, that's simply absurd.


It would be nice if UBI worked, just as it would be nice if unicorns and rainbow candy fountains existed. Rational people know otherwise.

To be more specific, societies can afford a certain degree of deadweight loss. Compared to, say, the Medieval Era, we can afford much more. Our higher level of prosperity is the **only** reason we have a more comprehensive social safety net .... not because we have somehow 'progressed' ethically. AI means more prosperity for all, which inevitably will mean more social services for those who don't contribute to society.

More political dogma and lack of knowledge

Parks and Roads - beyond rational debate

You have no idea of history of roads and parks etc .
Yes were were so free back then to go freely anywhere , no need for a kings pass they were like unicorns , they never existed

Private roads, The Kings Road , tollways, restricted access.
Do you think none of these things never existed or some still do

Do you think theirs are not lobbyist who which to privatise more roads, bridges. Same for user pay for parks, which already exists.
Do you think you could stroll willy nilly through Richmond park of yesteryear.
Simple legal history where the law use to exist mainly to protect the lords and princes etc , to that which protects the personage of the common man
Equal rights even in The USA only happened recently for some things
Don't want women , slaves, POC , heathens having rights of access

Do you think that companies don't want to make you pay for water, clean air if they could and many people are paying for water as corporations using state welfare poisoned water sources

so what is absurd again - we subsidise many people to use roads they paid nothing for , nor the upkeep of the parks . Lots of countries have been considering levies for these dead weights as you call them

Corporations are actively poisoning the well, to promote their corporate greed with hopefully a huge Corporate Welfare Subsidy

Yes Corporate welfare good
Welfare for the poor , sick ,needy is evil, bad as like you say to paraphrase they are bludgers and leechers - your words "those who don't contribute to society" "deadweight"

ah yes better to be in a job making crap and guns to kill and torture , better to make more coal fire power stations , strip the land to feed the people you think the world needs , You suggested was it 30 Billion from memory - Maybe that is your belief what you want who knows - I want human population to slowly decline to say 4 or 5 Billion through ethical means - like educating women , by reducing poverty etc

What is a deadweight , a sick family member , a child not carrying bricks in India , or a child not working a gold mine in the Congo

Charities made illegal - happens it many countries- read the news .

Lots of American fundamentalists want to stop charities in Africa if they don't promote fundamentalists views . These people want this as law at the federal level to restrict.
try driving a 3 month pregant raped teen to another State in The USA from certain States , hell some even talking about the death penalty for such evil

It was never about saving lives from HIV for them is was dogma. Condoms are bad and evil. telling a women she controls her sexuality is evil

As I said I won't get into discussing UBI as many on here are bad faith actors , always have been and always will be , even though I have read about a few studies and some micro money payments to certain members of society

I have always shown honesty and have no cowardice to state my opinions , my position etc on this stuff, climate change , social justice .
Why should I discuss with those who have no bavary or honesty to state their own position , but just want to attack details and would no valid model forward

Show a comments above the meaningfully discusses this research ,

On TS we can have good discussions on non-political tech stuff , but very rarely on this stuff when you see closed minds from the first sentence someone says

You see same dogma for globalisation , trade, being woke ( ie being aware how how it is for some groups in society ), safety/protection vs corporate right to exploit

 

[Aranarth]

I would like to point out that roads in the US are not "Free" they are paid for by your gas tax.
(One of the problems with EV's since they need no gas so they don't pay for the roads they drive on.)

Also UBI was tried in Canada for those trying to think of what country it was tried in:

Canada’s forgotten universal basic income experiment

Amid wide unemployment during Covid-19, basic income schemes have gained fresh relevance. A successful Canadian scheme that's over four decades old could provide a road map for others.

www.bbc.com

Had some very promising results.

Also how about taking care of homeless people in California:

The Costs and Harms of Homelessness

Homelessness is both a reflection of — and driver of — some of the most irreparable harms being borne by individuals, communities, and our society at large.

community.solutions

There have been multiple studies that is is actually cheaper to give homeless people a free ride with an apartment, mental health, medical, and food only costing $30K/yr.
Dealing with homelessness and all of the problems it causes may cost as much $200k/yr per person in hidden or unaccounted costs.

UBI is net benefit to society and the economy as is universal healthcare.
I live in the US, but I was born in the UK and lived almost a decade in Canada.
I have a slightly different look at how things are done in here in the US. Absolutely healthcare is NOT something that should be privatized! No one should be going bankrupt just because they get sick.

 

[Endymio]

You have no idea of history of roads and parks etc .
Yes were were so free back then to go freely anywhere , no need for a kings pass ...Private roads, The Kings Road...Do you think none of these things never existed

Learn history. From the Romans through Medieval times, roads were built for reasons of self-interest: to move troops, to collect tolls, to increase trade in an area in which you would personally profit. They were not exercises in social-welfare altruism. The Kings Road you cite was built for private use only, and remained that way for two centuries. Not "welfare".

As others have already pointed out, even roads today aren't "free" -- they're largely financed by fuel taxes. And in the US at least, builders pay the road construction costs to the new homes they construct.

Fun fact: the US Interstate Highway System wasn't a "welfare project" either. One of its major purposes was as Cold War defense infrastructure -- every one mile in five was mandated to be perfectly straight, for use as an emergency airstrip.

 

[bclaymiles]

Citation needed

Welfare has failed all times, every where er Ok
UBI has been tested before from memory in was it Finland, had interesting results

Lets hope all welfare is removed in USA , free health care , free education , free roads, parks, infrastructure - need user pay everywhere

No free pensions, unemployment, sickness, mental health

No free lawyers
Make charities and free help groups illegal
No free dentists for kids
No free prisons, prisoners who stole to survive with mental health problems , and no legal representation need to become slaves

Yeah make US of A great again , kick your kids out at 15

Europe , Australia, NZ and Japan are not happy , less stressful countries , they are lazy and must live longer in a suffering welfare states

So much BS spewed about , early days .
Lots of research also in the micro payments' to mothers in developing countries etc

All I see here is Dogma , close minded belief systems

No democracy is perfect - eg USA is judged poorly here, but it is what you have
No welfare system is perfect
No legal system is perfect
No EVs are perfect

yet lets just mindlessly keep throwing the baby out with the bath water

few of you are discussing the merits or cons, You are shoehorning your dogma and biases to rationalise it

This is another example that the the usual suspects promoting their dogma and political views

Never admit nothing
Never truly discuss from a position with honesty , it is always 100% outright attack

They can't even say it would be nice if UBI worked on some level but I think it fails 100%
ie they have no desire for it to work and be developed into a viable solution

Why do you put a space before your commas?

 

[BadThad]

Poverty cannot be solved by giving away free money! All it does it make people lazier than they inherently already are. UBI is the most absurd idea ever! If you need money, they EARN it like everyone else.

 

[BadThad]

I don't know why the idea of UBI is so convoluted. It seems simple to me.

If you want a large study of what UBI does, start a nationwide lottery with a prize of $1,000 per month. Then follow up. Do one for $1,000 a month, $2,000, or whatever. You could also start interviewing existing lottery winners.

It seems to me if you do a thought experiment and imagine that all of the work tomorrow was automated but everyone still received the same money as if they were still working, wouldn't the economy still work the way it does right now? Except people no longer have to work. So somewhere on this scale it can work.

perhaps as people can do more full time work needs to be scaled back to 30 yours a week or something like that

How about you fund it? Send all your earnings into the government so they can redistribute it to those who did nothing, pure genius.

 

[bclaymiles]

Poverty cannot be solved by giving away free money! All it does it make people lazier than they inherently already are. UBI is the most absurd idea ever! If you need money, they EARN it like everyone else.

To amplify with a 'fixed that for you':

"Poverty cannot be solved by giving away money that other people have earned".

 

[gamerk2]

So sad that Healthcare is among the top worries in the US - Most countries have free universal healthcare, shouldn't really be a question, it should be an "of course it's free".
I see benefits with this UIB trial - but the totals shouldn't be 1000 dollars, it should be closer to 2000 dollars and it should replace disability checks, unemployment checks etc. - That way the insane administration costs of those would vanish and they might actually end up not spending "that much more", it would also remove alot of anxiety and stress for people worried about their jobs. "Ok, so if I loose my job, I still have the basic income until I find something else, I'll make do".

Basic income checks could be handed out to anyone with less than 25k yearly income.
As it stands, I guess the US can't cover that cost, as the debt has passed like..34 trillion? But for other countries it could absolutely work

This is essentially where I am: Use a UBI as a mechanism to replace a lot of the disparate programs we are currently maintaining. And yes, tie it (and the Federal minimum wage) to inflation. To me, the only real debate should be over how much to pay out and who qualifies.

 

[gamerk2]

Poverty cannot be solved by giving away free money! All it does it make people lazier than they inherently already are. UBI is the most absurd idea ever! If you need money, they EARN it like everyone else.

Except study after study shows that isn't true; the people most likely to kick back and do no work with the money they receive tend to be the wealthy. Every single study that has been done in regards to UBIs shows that people who receive the money uses it to either wait out for a better paying job opportunity (rather then taking the first one offered), or uses it to handle their basic needs.

The "poor people are poor because they are lazy" is a myth that is perpetrated by those in power to protect their wealth. But hey, keep defending having more people fight over less money; what could go wrong?

 

[Eldrach]

Except study after study shows that isn't true; the people most likely to kick back and do no work with the money they receive tend to be the wealthy. Every single study that has been done in regards to UBIs shows that people who receive the money uses it to either wait out for a better paying job opportunity (rather then taking the first one offered), or uses it to handle their basic needs.

The "poor people are poor because they are lazy" is a myth that is perpetrated by those in power to protect their wealth. But hey, keep defending having more people fight over less money; what could go wrong?

I second that. If people had the financial security to educate themselves or at least not "go for the first thing that would provide -any- income while not having to worry about where the next meal will come from, people would actually be encouraged to do so, this would further force companies like Amazon to provide better salaries or risk loosing their underpaid work force

 

[trieste1s]

It's the definition of the Gini Index, not an interpretation of it. And I'm glad you asked about those other nations. The Nordic Countries score rather high -- though lower than consumer paradises like Moldava, Belarus, Slovenia and Ukraine -- but the the Baltics are near the bottom of the list.

The Gini Index equates universal poverty with utopia. When China was a nation of a billion agrarian peasants, all laboring in the sun 18 hours a day, it scored near perfect. Leftist utopia.

So are you saying that the leftists are striving for perfect equality / universal poverty just as the capitalists are striving for perfect inequality / universal slavery? Are the 2 diametric positions the only positions worth striving for, or is it actually possible and even highly reasonable to make the case that it's not good to be too near the top or too near the bottom of the index?

I dunno, I've been seeing a proliferation of strawmen in online discussions, just want to know if there's a way to talk about such things without trying to slay these strawmen in strenuous attempts to get easy virtual wins.

 

[ClemCa]

UBI is only UBI if it fits the basic needs. In a country like the US where healthcare is unnecessarily expensive, UBI is not feasible without significant change. It must be able to cover acceptable food, water, enough electricity for heat/cooling/cooking, renewal of appliances (at a rate of 1 change every 10-20 years maybe), low cost transports (repayment of a loan for a small car as the US is very car-dependent), a small appartment's rent, and healthcare. All of that to say it must at least cover just enough to keep a simple life without hobbies, particularly tasty food or entertainment. UBI is "enough money to live without being homeless
In today's landscape, it is not something that is even remotely possible in the US, let alone with a 1000$ budget.

 

[billc]

Another dumb idea by the undereducated fool that thinks LLM's are going to become intelligent. He needs to lay of the magic mushrooms, and learn a bit about computer science.

 

[billc]

UBI is simply a new fancy title for Welfare which has failed, failed, and failed every time it has been tried.

Universal Basic Compute is the most ridiculous idea ever that only people completely convinced of AI’s hype won’t just burst out laughing when pitched like a real solution.

Altman and Musk are both conmen who know nothing about computer science. But who is to blame; them, or gullible Americans and their schools: in the UK nobody believes a word that these two clowns say.

 

[RudyBob]

"universal basic income" How stupid

 

[Endymio]

So are you saying that the leftists are striving for perfect equality / universal poverty just as the capitalists are striving for perfect inequality / universal slavery?

You have it exactly backwards. Choosing to work to provide yourself with goods and services is the very essence of freedom itself. You may not find the life of a beach bum or homeless vagrant appealing, but you're being compelled only by your own needs and wants -- not the demands of any other person.

Slavery is your proposal: laws demanding that productive people labor to support those who don't. If you're a starry-eyed college freshman -- or someone who never grew beyond that mentality -- it's easy to believe in a rainbow candy-sprinkle world where houses build themselves, designer sneakers and smart phones grow on magic beanstalks, and medical care is provided by faceless robots, rather than other human beings. The reality is you're forcing other people to do your bidding.

The fact that this slavery is immoral isn't even the largest strike against it -- the real problem is that it's unstable. In a society where one can have a reasonably desirable lifestyle without lifting a finger, a few people may still choose to become teachers or doctors for the sheer joy of working. But no one elects to cart away the garbage, maintain a city sewer system, or any of ten thousand other unpleasant tasks that modern society requires.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

You have it exactly backwards. Choosing to work to provide yourself with goods and services is the very essence of freedom itself. You may not find the life of a beach bum or homeless vagrant appealing, but you're being compelled only by your own needs and wants -- not the demands of any other person.

Slavery is your proposal: laws demanding that productive people labor to support those who don't. If you're a starry-eyed college freshman -- or someone who never grew beyond that mentality -- it's easy to believe in a rainbow candy-sprinkle world where houses build themselves, designer sneakers and smart phones grow on magic beanstalks, and medical care is provided by faceless robots, rather than other human beings. The reality is you're forcing other people to do your bidding.

The fact that this slavery is immoral isn't even the largest strike against it -- the real problem is that it's unstable. In a society where one can have a reasonably desirable lifestyle without lifting a finger, a few people may still choose to become teachers or doctors for the sheer joy of working. But no one elects to cart away the garbage, maintain a city sewer system, or any of ten thousand other unpleasant tasks that modern society requires.

Wow, post of the year on Techspot. 100% agree!

 

[trieste1s]

You have it exactly backwards. Choosing to work to provide yourself with goods and services is the very essence of freedom itself. You may not find the life of a beach bum or homeless vagrant appealing, but you're being compelled only by your own needs and wants -- not the demands of any other person.

Slavery is your proposal: laws demanding that productive people labor to support those who don't. If you're a starry-eyed college freshman -- or someone who never grew beyond that mentality -- it's easy to believe in a rainbow candy-sprinkle world where houses build themselves, designer sneakers and smart phones grow on magic beanstalks, and medical care is provided by faceless robots, rather than other human beings. The reality is you're forcing other people to do your bidding.

The fact that this slavery is immoral isn't even the largest strike against it -- the real problem is that it's unstable. In a society where one can have a reasonably desirable lifestyle without lifting a finger, a few people may still choose to become teachers or doctors for the sheer joy of working. But no one elects to cart away the garbage, maintain a city sewer system, or any of ten thousand other unpleasant tasks that modern society requires.

What about slavery in the sense of having to pee into bottles while on minimal wage shift..? Is that part of being forced to do others' bidding.. or otherwise lose one's job and starve?

 

[BadThad]

Except study after study shows that isn't true; the people most likely to kick back and do no work with the money they receive tend to be the wealthy. Every single study that has been done in regards to UBIs shows that people who receive the money uses it to either wait out for a better paying job opportunity (rather then taking the first one offered), or uses it to handle their basic needs.

The "poor people are poor because they are lazy" is a myth that is perpetrated by those in power to protect their wealth. But hey, keep defending having more people fight over less money; what could go wrong?

Then I propose you send me $2000 per month in perpetuity if you're such a believer.

 

[toooooot]

Except people no longer have to work. So somewhere on this scale it can work.

I have a strong feeling that if prediction were calculated right, there are 2 outcomes:
1. ubi is pretty good, people quit their shitty jobs, nation runs out of money
2. is a follow up of the first one. ubi becomes so small that it is literally poverty. People go back to work, at least those who still can find a job

When people speak of ubi, I do not think they are using the right term.
Good ubi equals not bad ubi, a ubi that is derived of the nation's ability to gather enough money for it.

 

[toooooot]

UBI is only UBI if it fits the basic needs. In a country like the US where healthcare is unnecessarily expensive, UBI is not feasible without significant change. It must be able to cover acceptable food, water, enough electricity for heat/cooling/cooking, renewal of appliances (at a rate of 1 change every 10-20 years maybe), low cost transports (repayment of a loan for a small car as the US is very car-dependent), a small appartment's rent, and healthcare. All of that to say it must at least cover just enough to keep a simple life without hobbies, particularly tasty food or entertainment. UBI is "enough money to live without being homeless
In today's landscape, it is not something that is even remotely possible in the US, let alone with a 1000$ budget.

If we ever come to have it, it will be a child of a dire need. It would be born of reality where a lot of people simply don't have anywhere to work. This would also come with biggest taxes on anyone making more than a million, heavy taxes on luxury and more.
It would happen out of need rather than trying to give our people more now.