[thomascgalvin]

People like Altman and Musk are saying that Universal Basic Income will be necessary once AI has fully automated away most jobs, but at the same time they aggressively fight against any kind of tax policy that would allow UBI to function.

I am convinced that their talk of UBI is just handwaving; they're trying to convince us that there will be a solution to the destruction of the economy as we know it, so that we'll just let them do whatever they want.

It isn't the backlash against AI that will get ugly, it will be the backlash against the ten people who suddenly own the entire world's money supply

[mrhottakes]

It's the same "give me a lot of money and everything will be great for everyone!" pitch that rich guys have been running for the history of humanity.

[jareklupinski]

> "give me a lot of money and everything will be great for everyone!"

or a hostage negotiation

[Henchman21]

It is almost like the interconnectedness the internet has given us has laid bare the fact that human institutions aren’t to be trusted. That the longer an institution exists the further it drifts from whatever its stated purpose. That they all tend towards corruption, aggregation of power, and actions that are by most people’s definition evil.

Or something :)

[palmotea]

> It is almost like the interconnectedness the internet has given us has laid bare the fact that human institutions aren’t to be trusted. That the longer an institution exists the further it drifts from whatever its stated purpose. That they all tend towards corruption, aggregation of power, and actions that are by most people’s definition evil.

Careful with that. I think that kind of perfectionist, all-or-nothing thinking is an echo of the propaganda meant to help the rich guys' pitch. Basically: "doesn't the government suck because it's not perfect? Kill it! (BTW, it's also the only thing powerful enough keep the rich guys under control, so increasing distrust sets them free)."

I think the reality is human institutions require work to function, and if the common people are either too lazy or too busy to do that work, they get corrupted. Also, a certain level of unity is required, and maintaining that unity has been extremely unfashionable for many decades.

[Henchman21]

> Careful with that

Fair point -- none of us want to be in the situation where all our current institutions have failed and there's nothing to replace them. That is chaos and anarchy and a true mess. Even the most hardened ideologues put in that environment would want a more orderly society. "Order" is another word to be careful of.

> I think the reality is human institutions require work to function, and if the common people are either too lazy or too busy to do that work, they get corrupted. Also, a certain level of unity is required, and maintaining that unity has been extremely unfashionable for many decades.

We agree on this as well. We currently don't put in the work to make a good and just society. I don't think it's that we're too lazy en masse, but too busy rings true. Too distracted as well.

Our "elites" have set about breaking up our unity, fracturing us into smaller groups that can be managed. The "fashion" is definitely to denigrate anything and everything that would build unity. Judge the other. Accuse the foreigner. Demonize those who look different.

But that interconnectedness has woken many people up. The people are starting to see clearly now that what has been required for much of human history may no longer be required. And so we see the existing power structure panic, and try and double down on whats worked in the past: violence, divide and conquer, rule through force.

Obviously I can't know the outcome. But it feels like we're all at a moment in history where major change is coming, which might be great or might be a new level of living hell.

I'm glad I'm around to watch what happens :)

[palmotea]

> Our "elites" have set about breaking up our unity, fracturing us into smaller groups that can be managed. The "fashion" is definitely to denigrate anything and everything that would build unity. Judge the other. Accuse the foreigner. Demonize those who look different.

Yes, but I think your more specific examples are more liberal-coded, and leave a false impression. Liberals aren't immune. I'd say the biggest example of "fracturing us into smaller groups that can be managed" is political polarization. There are a lot of liberals that are unsalvageably deep into that, reject finding common ground (even in obviously self-defeating ways), and who seem to be able to only conceive of unity as being total domination of their other.

> But that interconnectedness has woken many people up. The people are starting to see clearly now that what has been required for much of human history may no longer be required. And so we see the existing power structure panic, and try and double down on whats worked in the past: violence, divide and conquer, rule through force.

Can you be more specific about who's been woken up?

[Henchman21]

> Yes, but I think your more specific examples are more liberal-coded

Struggling with this statement. Liberal vs Conservative is a false dichotomy and precisely the sort of divide we could do without. Frankly I don’t know what “liberal coded” even really is supposed to convey. Perhaps you mean to say my implicit bias skews towards liberals? You’ve made no mention of conservatives, who are also unsalvageably deep into that. Trying to discuss anything regarding these two specific groups is a HUGE DISTRACTION and plays into the divide. How would you phrase it differently?

> Can you be more specific about who's been woken up?

Oh yes, since 2020 and Covid I think there is a chunk of the populace that had implicit faith in our institutions. Covid showed that faith was misplaced. My impression is that more and more people are just done with all this and are patiently waiting for the next thing. I sort of doubt that makes sense — it feels a bit woowoo to me tbh. But as it happens I also think most of those people were “liberals” and what we’re seeing now from that group is mostly cognitive dissonance.

[6510]

I haven't decided which word I like best to describe it but if the citizens are not on the same team or if there isn't a team anymore everything goes to shit. Collective/community/unity etc

[Taikonerd]

Maybe "social capital"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

[Henchman21]

"Anarchy" seems appropriate

[_DeadFred_]

'Teeth suck because if you don't keep them maintained they degrade over time'

Isn't like the basic of reality that everything drifts? If you want to keep order it is a constant task, not a onetime creation be it an institution or a house?

[Henchman21]

It certainly may be that this is a basic tenet of our reality. But how many people are asleep to reality? How many more have woken up to that specific reality as our old institutions crumble? Yes its obvious but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be said out loud.

[cjbgkagh]

I keep warning people that promising UBI and not delivering UBI both serve the same end, undermining opposition.

By the time you find out that their promises of UBI are empty it’s too late to do anything about it.

[JKCalhoun]

I don't know. A nationwide (global?) promise of UBI that just evaporates is likely to bring on a French Revolution kind of moment.

[Gud]

The difference between then and now is that the have nots don’t have much leverage.

At least during the French Revolution, they had strength in numbers.

The people who control the capital are building autonomous armament to protect themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies.

If you sell labour for money, you should be worried.

[johneth]

> The people who control the capital are building autonomous armament to protect themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies.

Rich people can build all the fortified bunkers they want, but they still need to get their food, water, and air from somewhere. It would be very easy to cut them off or smoke them out.

(I'm not advocating for violence in any way, I'm just pointing out that nobody's invincible, no matter how obscenely wealthy they are).

[wolvesechoes]

> I'm not advocating for violence in any way

God, I hate this.

"Guys, there is an ugly but working solution to many of our problems, but hey, I am so well-tamed I automatically need to emphasize I don't condone choosing this option"

[cjbgkagh]

Imagine a split between two factions, one that wants UBI and one that doesn't. The most talented people will go to the faction that doesn't offer/impose UBI. That's why UBI is impossible, the incentive to defect is immense.

[Gud]

What makes you think that?

Why would “the most talented” necessarily side with the oppressors?

[palmotea]

> I am convinced that their talk of UBI is just handwaving; they're trying to convince us that there will be a solution to the destruction of the economy as we know it, so that we'll just let them do whatever they want.

This is exactly it. Also, even if UBI is implemented:

1) It's probably going to be just enough to let one scrape by as a member of a permanent underclass. You will not be comfortable on it.

2) I doubt it will be permanent, there will be a rug-pull once said underclass has been politically neutered. They'll kill off the UBI deprivation, mainly because they just don't care about those people.

[JKCalhoun]

So you're saying we'll all live on "Reservations".

[palmotea]

Aren't you excited?

[QuantumGood]

What wealthy celebrities say has no relation to what they will say later, or what they actually think now, regardless if they are speaking about businesses they are directly involved in, or how those businesses or policies integrate with public policies.

So much of the world is discussing what celebrities say, and it's incredibly pointless to take them at face value. They are not trying to convey their current or future thinking, they are trying to shape discourse.

[randycupertino]

Given how resistant American voters and politicians are against any sort of welfare or social assistance I doubt UBI would ever be possible here. Remember the backlash against "ObamaPhones" and "welfare queens!" We can't even get mandatory paid parental leave approved; UBI would be a non-starter.

Americans are fine with low taxes for billionaires and don't mind high inequality as one of their core beliefs is that upward class mobility is achievable and they might also get rich.

[bluecheese452]

When the checks had trumps name on them during the pandemic they loved it. They don’t hate welfare on principle, they hate it when the propaganda tells them to hate it.

[thomascgalvin]

They love programs that benefit them, and hate programs that benefit the "wrong" people. Also, the definition of "wrong people" is very easy to guess.

[ethbr1]

The irony is when political advertising manages to convince people that a policy that would benefit them (because they're poor) would benefit someone they dislike (because they're racist), and they vote against their own self-interest.

See: poor Republicans supporting cuts to ACA

[ToValueFunfetti]

You do have to imagine the political environment where unemployment is rapidly climbing among the middle class rather than the current status quo if your intent is to accurately predict the future.

[randycupertino]

I'm skeptical. Even during the great depression FDR was only able to get work programs approved that assigned jobs like Conservation Corps, Public Works and WPA rather than just handing out cash.

And even then amongst bank collapses, failed farms, starving people and catastrophic unemployment there was STILL heavy opposition to any government assistance programs because there is a very deep fear entrenched in the American psyche that government aid creates dependency and weakens individual responsibility. There is a widespread false narrative that any sort of government help is leftist socialism and communism.

[tim333]

The majority of people agree that taxes to pay for schools, hospitals, roads and the like are a good idea. The majority of people also don't want to pay more tax personally. I don't think there's any great contradiction there.

Taxing the ten people won't happen because they choose it. It may happen because the majority of the population will vote in a government that does that.

Most of the changes - AI getting better, changes to the tax and economic system, are kind of inevitable regardless of Musk, Altman or whatever other figureheads get involved. Human level AI was predicted perhaps most famously by Turing who thought it might take 50 years but it's actually been more like 75. Tax revenue as a % of gdp has gone in the UK from about 10% in 1900 to near 45% now and those trends will probably also continue. (tax graph https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Dilnot/publicati...)

[tavavex]

It is just handwaving. They're billionaires. The only thing they're capable of saying is the thing that's going to lead to the best outcome for them.

They found out that 'UBI' is a collection of sounds that's apparently popular with the detractors. Crucially, the task of turning this acronym into real policy will never fall on them, and no one will blame them if it never comes. So, when faced with criticism about the bleak world they want to force on us, they can just recite the UBI warding spell, reassuring people that even if they make the worst version of reality happen, surely there will be someone else to help the commoners out - anyone but them.

[skybrian]

What’s an example where they took a side on taxes?

[mrhottakes]

Elon's companies famously pay very little in taxes, he spent last year attempting to gut the federal government, he complains constantly about how much he pays in taxes, and he's been very vocal about California's recent efforts to tax very wealthy people.

[dehrmann]

The California Billionaire Tax is a bad idea. It's not that wealth taxes can't work (most of the US taxes property just fine), it's that taxes need to be fair and predictable. The phase-in is too narrow and its implementation is too arbitrary. Why $1B? Why $5%? Why won't CA voters hit up billionaires again?

[xracy]

I feel like every opposition I read to wealth taxes is someone saying that we shouldn't do it, because it won't be perfect. Without offering an alternative to the status quo, which is nothing.

We can iterate on taxes if they're ineffective, but it's unforgivable to not try and do something in the face of so much inequality.

[dehrmann]

I sort of implied that it needs to be predicable (annual) and less arbitrary (bracketed). A one-off tax sends the message that you can be taxed whenever and for whatever. Unpredictable policy sends a message that somewhere isn't a stable place to live or do business.

[xracy]

This is not my reaction to just you. This is my reading of "any time a wealth tax is brought up." My recommendation to you, given you seem to be acting in good-faith:

Make it clear "What you want a wealth tax to look like instead" But also, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, so I think any state setting the grounds for how they're going to try this, is worth supporting and iterating on.

[mrhottakes]

Maybe, maybe not, but it's an example of Elon taking a side on taxes, per the original post.

[JKCalhoun]

"Why $1B? Why $5%?"

You have some numbers that are less arbitrary?

[nullocator]

Why is my tax rate 30-40%? Why are billionaires like 0.1%? Why won't the U.S. and state governments hit me up every single paycheck, year after year?

Like holy smokes, who amongst these rich men will not be harmed!

[dlev_pika]

A few days ago he tweeted something along the lines of:

“Bitches Money No Taxes Party”

I think he deleted it afterwards

[onedognight]

Support for Trump, or even Republicans writ large, means support for reducing taxes (both estate and income) on the wealthy, while increasing them on consumers (via tariffs). Musk has been an ardent supporter of Trump.

[ToValueFunfetti]

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, this line of reasoning makes no sense in a two party state where each party offers a menu of positions. Supporters are forced to make tradeoffs and pretending otherwise just gives you an incoherent picture of reality.

[mrhottakes]

In which states does the Republican party support increasing taxes?

[ToValueFunfetti]

"Two party state" as in a government where politics are bifurcated. In a one party state, a citizen's voting history isn't informative whatsoever about their beliefs. In a direct democracy, their votes give you a complete map of the positions on any issue that came up. In the US, we only know that an R voter prefers the entire set of R policies over the entire set of D policies. Maybe they're pro-taxes, pro-welfare, anti-immigrant, pro-life, and pro-gun, and they weight these positions such that it makes sense to sacrifice the taxes and welfare to get the rest. So, while the party is anti-taxes, everyone who supports it may not be.

[electroly]

Just because a hypocrite says something doesn't mean that thing is wrong. If a drug addict tells you not to use drugs, they're still right about that. UBI is the solution, isn't it? Capitalism both requires everyone to have a job while at the same time providing no guarantee that jobs are available. The idea doesn't get tainted just because the words left the mouths of a few rich hypocrites. We have to do it despite them.

[pchristensen]

UBI is an "entitlement". Just look at how well a certain slice of the powerful view other "entitlements" like Obamacare or Social Security.

I like the idea of UBI, but the biggest problem with UBI is that it relies on the government to fund it, and the government can be controlled and subverted. UBI might go away, get held up by government shutdowns, not be indexed to inflation, etc - there's a ton of ways things that could go wrong if peoples' entire livelihoods are under the control of one entity.

[watwut]

UBI is not solution. Not even in theory. A system where majority is powerless will be the system where majority is oppressed and that is what it will be.

It is a lie pushed by people who go out of their way to be cruel whenever they can.

[rchaud]

> but at the same time they aggressively fight against any kind of tax policy that would allow UBI to function.

Because that isn't the UBI they're thinking of.

Altman runs an eyeball-scanning crypto startup and Musk wants to replicate WeChat to create a panopticon paradise for surveillance capitalism. In their world, UBI looks like something that even Black Mirror writers would reject as too unrealistic:

a) Free housing, but it's right next to a datacenter with its 24-hour noise. If you develop health problems from drinking the water or living near power lines, you get mandatory arbitration before an AI judge, with your legal representation provided by Grok.

b) Free money, but it's all in Worldcoin, and can only be spent at company-owned stores built around the datacenter. X.com charges a 30% fee if you try to convert it to USD.

[JKCalhoun]

Scrip.

[jsbisviewtiful]

> I am convinced that their talk of UBI is just handwaving

Well, they are sociopaths so that checks out. What I find even more horrible is that they still somehow have an almost religious following, but it's also becoming clear they may be helping to flood the internet with bots that bolster their talking points against any push back. They especially have an audience here that defends them while they push an agenda to de-power and bury the working class.

[llm_nerd]

Haven't really paid attention to Altman, so can't comment there, but on the Musk file I will say it is insane that anyone relies upon his future benevolence. And they do rely upon it given that America is 100% a plutocracy now and is run in the service of the ultra-rich who hold complete and utter control over government.

Musk's entire history on this planet betrays him to be a profoundly selfish individual with perilously little regard for anyone else. Musk and his ilk (Trump, Bezos, Page, Ellison, Thiel, etc) are more likely to see you ground up into Soylent Green than to offer largess like UBI.

[rune-dev]

> I am convinced that their talk of UBI is just handwaving

I mean yeah, obviously. You can’t trust a word out of either of their mouths.

[pllbnk]

UBI is a scapegoat, an easy answer to handwave the question about the job losses. People can't just live like that doing nothing and they won't. Before the current AI evolution the pro-UBI crowd would claim that in this utopia people would not need to work and they could create art. Now AI can create art and we see that with infinite supply it loses any kind of value.