So are you arguing we should change our relationship with human intelligence? What does that even mean?

Or, you know, by writing the code yourself?

To "provide enough" would cost trillions of extra dollars per year.

We're talking about an increased federal budget in the hundreds of billions/trillions to support such a UBI. That will cause a massive increase in taxation on the people who can still find jobs.

To make matters worst, the government in 10-15 years will likely be spending ~25% of it's budget on interest payments alone. Hiking the federal budget up even more sounds like a hard sell.

- 1. Will require a large increase in taxation.

- 2. Will likely cause some form of inflation.

- 3. Will not provide enough money for a majority of people to survive on.

- 4. Has no significant political support in the US.

Also, a UBI is likely to cause inflation.

A handful of people's wallets are much deeper than vast swaths of the population. None of this AI shit would be happening without their funding.

Say ~5 million jobs in the next 10 years are automated away, which industries do those people move to?

With college being exorbitantly expensive, that locks out many people from re-skilling in other fields.

As people race to other industries, that forces down wages because now there is a larger pool to select from.

How do we ensure people are taken care of when UBI is all but fiscally impossible in the US?

The internet didn't follow this trajectory. Neither did smart phones.

Surprise, surprise, it's the same people trying to make AI entrenched into our society.

There are millions of software engineers in the US alone. Don't put all of them into a single bucket.

Economists typically point to this phenomenon when people talk about the relatively stable working hours over the last 50-60 years. I've seen some of them argue it's an issue of supply/demand, and that if people truly wanted to work less we'd see more of demand for such careers. I think this ignores that retirement/medical benefits are almost exclusively tied to jobs expecting you to work 40 hours a week.

An opportunity for a deeper understanding of gardening? If you spend hours researching on gardening and come away with an incomplete understanding of what you were attempting to do, I'm not sure that's immediately the fault of the research available. It could be that you just didn't do a good job searching for the necessary information.

In this way, AI can be a boon. It helps figure out what you actually want to know in the moment. But I think it would be a step to far to say that a smattering of specific questions can replace the sturdy foundation povided by a typical education--e.g. through apprenticeship, books, etc.

>It's also clearly obvious when AI gives bad or incorrect advice

Is it? Isn't this a __core__ problem that researchers around the world are trying to solve? Also, __how__ could you make such a statement unless you already possessed the knowledge ahead of time to make such a judgment? I think it's hard to know if something is bad advice by looking at just cause and effect. It could be that you just lack the understanding to put the advice into practice.

What about the skill of learning itself? I would suggest that's one of the most important skills humans have evolved. The more integrated AI becomes in our societies, the more it will automate away potential opportunities for learning. I can forsee a world tightly integrated with AI where people are not only physically sedentary, but mentally as well.

As we progress further into the future, we need more educated people than ever to tackle the exponentially increasing complexities of our society. But AI presents an obstacle that many will never cross due to how to convenient it is to skip the messy work of understanding.

Also, this problem is not unique to AI. It existed before the GPTs and Claude's of the world. But it's a problem of scale, and every company on the Earth right now is trying to scale AI up as fast as possible.

Again, writing replacing memorization is not a good 1:1 comparison to AI replacing technical understanding. Someone still needs to understand what is written and act upon that knowledge. That requires skill and experience in the domain they're working within.

However, a person using an AI does not need to understand the underlying problem to get results. A person can ask Claude Code to write them a web app dashboard without having ever learned JS/CSS/HTML. It does not require them to have skills within a domain.

Also, we need to be honest with ourselves. Human brains did not evolve for the instant gratification of modern technology. We've already seen what technology has done to our attention spans. I am concerned over what further reliance on technology, particularly AI, will do to our brains.

But this is assuming we share the same set of axioms?

It sounds like you don't accept humans having intrinsic value as a core axiom. However, I do, and it makes zero sense to me to try and "prove" such a notion.

This is such a rigid world view that is demonstrably wrong. I won't even argue with you because others have already pointed out why this cannot be true elsewhere.

What I will say is that I hope you're doing alright.