Sam Altman falls out of love with universal basic income(businessinsider.com) |
Sam Altman falls out of love with universal basic income(businessinsider.com) |
Initially, the focus was consumer use of AI. People needed to feel safe, they needed to feel part of something better.
Now, the focus is enterprises, and they need to know that their tokens aren't going to spike in price from taxes
I feel that I cannot properly voice my feelings about him without being banned from hacker news.
I say this as someone who is an avid AI enthusiast. Sam Altman is a monster.
There is this ongoing flack in our "billionaire-said-a-thing" news where billionaires imply that their tech will result in huge benefits that will be delivered by someone else once they amass their fortunes.
Musk is the most obvious. He publicly proclaims his mission to create technology that ensures we all live better, healthier lives, while routinely violating labor, safety, and environmental laws and insisting his employees work 60-hour weeks with minimal vacation in order to give him a shot at becoming the world’s first trillionaire.
I wish the press would push back once in a while.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/the-ai-pledge-for-humani...
So nationalise the AI companies? Isn’t that exactly what that would be. I am not opposed to the idea of public ownership, but I think some of the existing investors aren’t going to be happy with that option.
they will be happier than having no customers cause everyone is out of a job
But if you want to give it? It's an entirely different picture.
I've heard this said and can only imagine babies being born with stock options in OpenAI; in which case, there is not really much difference between your two scenarios.
Otherwise, how are you going to distribute ownership of AI compute, if no one has jobs to earn it?
If 50% of the population understand themselves to belong to a permanent leisure class, who are entitled to simply go through life hosting dinners and grabbing drinks and taking walks in the park whenever they'd like, that's probably an OK future. The pathway from here to there is scary, and you'd have to think about how to manage the other 50% outbidding them for positional goods, but you could imagine it working out.
If 50% of the population understand themselves to belong to a permanent underclass, dependent on the largesse of the other 50% to keep them alive, they're going to be extraordinarily motivated to burn things down. Even if the other 50% establish a generous welfare system, perhaps so generous that you can obtain all the same goods and services that you could in the first scenario, it wouldn't solve the problem.