I suspect a universal basic income is a requirement for people to _not_ seek an idle life. If people can't count on food, shelter, and health care, they probably can't engage in anything in a substantial way. On the other hand, saving the people that could do substantial things (and by "substantial" I mean artistic or scientific discovery or synthesis), could come at a prohibitive cost of saving those that won't. A problem with the "day jobber" approach is the narrowing of substantial things to what happens to be in the interest of dominant organizations. Even in silicon valley, that's a harsh narrowing of the possible. So I would say do it to make the world interesting and not just for humanitarian reasons.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ? Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 1:36 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fascinating article on how AI is driving change in SEO, categories of AI and the Law of Accelerating Returns On that note, I found this article interesting: A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html?_r=0 One of the interesting dynamics I've noticed is when I argue about the basic income with people who have day jobs (mostly venture funded, but some megacorps like Intel), they tend to object strongly; and when I have similar conversations with people who struggle on a continual basis to find and execute _projects_ (mostly DIY people who do a lot of freelance work from hardware prototyping to fixing motorcycles), they tend to be for the idea (if not the practicals of how to pay for it). I can't help thinking it has to do with the (somewhat false) dichotomy between those who think people are basically good, productive, energetic, useful versus those who think (most) people are basically lazy, unproductive, parasites. The DIYers surround themselves with similarly creative people, whereas the day-job people are either themselves or surrounded by, people they feel don't pull their weight. (I know I've often felt like a "third wheel" when working on large teams... and I end up having to fend for myself and forcibly squeeze some task out so that I can be productive. These day-jobbers might feel similarly at various times. Or they're simply narcissists and don't recognize the contributions of their team members.) It also seems coincident with "great man" worship... The day-jobbers tend to put more stock in famous people (like Musk or Hawking or whoever), whereas the DIYers seem to be open to or tolerant of ideas (or even ways of life) in which they may initially see zero benefit. On 06/06/2016 11:24 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote: > > Finally, and this is where my anger really boils: they sound to me like the > worst kind of patronizing, privileged white guys imaginable. There’s no sense > in their aggrieved messages that billions of people around the globe are > struggling, and have lives that could be vastly improved with AI. Maybe it > behooves them to imagine the good AI can do for those people, instead of > stamping their feet because AI is going to upset their personal world. Which > it will. It must be very hard to be the smartest guy on the block for so > long, and then here comes something even smarter. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
