[mrshadowgoose]

Unfun thought experiment: In an AGI scenario, what lever of power do the UBI recipients have to force what you've described?

Historically, humanity's biological monopoly on the fundamental resource of "general intelligence" has always been that lever. Looking at the world today, it's pretty clear that democracies are just a temporary balance between the general contempt of the powerful towards commoners, and the fact that the powerful begrudgingly need our economic utility, which is ultimately based on our general intellect. Even callous dictatorships had to exercise partial restraint on violence and murder, to retain a pool of general intellect.

AGI will be a multiple-whammy here:

- most people will become economically worse-than-useless, they will be a total liability on the rich and powerful

- those same people are unlikely to be given access to any levers of power or influence, because they no longer have anything of value to provide to the rich and powerful

- AGI in combination with robotic platforms, after a certain threshold, will permit for insurmountable policing. The "rise up against the robots" cliches we see in film simply become impossible after a certain point.

I desperately hope we end up wielding AI to usher in a post-scarcity utopia, but looking at the types of people who own the world...we'll get what we're allowed to get.

[randerson]

The people in power (whether a government/king, or company) will have the incentive to shrink the population. In the past, the economy grew with the number of people, but now only the costs would grow. There is basically a non-zero chance that our future contains laws limiting who is allowed to have kids or how many. And that's not even the worst action they could take.

[dvsfish]

Excellent comment. From a pure resource allocation perspective, walking the current path is like looking down the barrel so to speak. I guess our fate is already in the hands of the decision makers. Hopefully theres enough conscience up there. That said, I would expect that if such a position were taken, it would be accomplished via a mass sterilisation campaign rather than direct extermination. More justifiable amongst other decision makers. Less moral burden.

[__MatrixMan__]

The lever is that whenever somebody tries to give you a scarcity-only token like USD or BTC you say "that's no good here, come back with something that proves to me that you didn't make it by making life worse for the people around you". We (the masses) still control consensus on what counts as valuable, and if were going to break from scarcity as the basis for that (and we should) then it has to be a proper break.

Play by rules that have something to do with our collective values or we're not going to acknowledge your stores of "value". "I got this from my grandpa who was a successful swindler" needs to stop being a source of money that you can expect the children of the swindled to accept. We need to drop the idea that scarcity implicitly creates meritocracy and instead deal in verifications of merit.

If they're really ready to go it alone in their bunkers with robots for friends then I guess we won't be seeing each other anymore, but I kinda doubt that'll work for them in the long run.

[walterbell]

> somebody tries to give you a scarcity-only token

Any alternative tokens you could recommend, other than barter?

[__MatrixMan__]

No, that's a protocol that were going to have to build.

I think CirclesUBI gets it partly right, re: different dynamics between parties based on their connectedness on a trust graph. But I think we'll want this on a CRDT, not a blockchain, and I think we'll want more nuance than their treat-others'-tokens-as-equal-in-value-to-your-own approach. But it's a decent start.