It recognise addiction (limited agency vs influence) and monetisation (economic rewards the primary means to influence behaviour) as problematic. It kind made “doing bad for pay” a premise of the system.

Large pay-checks incentivising bad behaviour is exactly another observable outcome of the same systemic issue.

Is another area needing new legislation. Changes to copyright, interoperability requirements and such, we can change more than one parameter

If there is a single policy change I could pick for public spending on IT it would be to forbid outsourcing to “contractors” and thinking of software delivery as “projects”

Some would argue its a little deeper than that

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

I think NVC is better understood as a framework to reach deep non-judging empathic understanding than a speech pattern. If you are not really engaging in curious exploration of the other party using the OFNR framework before trying to deliver your own request I don’t think you can really call it NVC. At the very least it will be very hard to get your point across even with OFNR if ot validating the receiver.

Validation being another word needing disambiguation I suppose. I see it as the act of expressing non-judging emphatic understanding. Using the OFNR framework with active listening can be a great approach.

A similar framework is the evaporating clouds of Theory of Constraints: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporating_cloud

Also see Kants categorical imperative: moral actions must be based on principles that respect the dignity and autonomy of all individuals, rather than personal desires or outcomes

https://www.anthropic.com/research/introspection

Tim Urban makes an interesting argument to the contrary in https://waitbutwhy.com/whatsourproblem

Though he argues that both “sides” are dangerously anti-liberal, but in different way.

Just picking out this one out of curiosity, not arguing the broader point.

In a world where people have more freedom on what to spend their energy and time on I would expect some things to return to the realm of unpaid labour. Child care, mentoring, care for the elder, local community contributions. Probably not replacing the demand entirely, but surely some shifts in supply and demand would be observed.

To be fair, I have had a strong sense of Gemini in particular becoming a lot more frustrated with me than GPT or Claude.

Yesterday I had it ensuring me that it was doing a great job, it was just me not understanding the challenge but it would break it down step by step just to make it obvious to me (only to repeat the same errors, but still)

I’ve just interpreted it as me reacting to the lower amount of sycophancy for now

The point of my source was not so much the economic argument, which, after all, talks about a reality several hundred years ago. Perhaps I should have linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism instead, to focus on the moral side of it.

I do think however that a modern take, especially if it turns out that recent AI developments will have sizable impact on the demand for human labor, could very well turn out to result in a dividend that is actually livable. Paine talks about land, but we should really consider all commons: Land, carbon emission rights, patents, copyright, trademark protections, electromagnetic spectrum, ip4 address space, dns names, the list can be made pretty extensive.

Perhaps it should end there. We could establish the idea of cooperatively owned legal entities representing various commons. These entities can collect rent in exchange for allocating parts of the commons to private use. I have a feeling it would make sense to take it a step further though, even if the details are probably over my head at the moment. It's already the case that pension funds function as a cooperative ownership of a part of all capital assets. And then there is home ownership and its connection to loans and wages. There probably will need to be some creative restructuring of this situation.