Universal Basic Income (UBI) Will Soon Be Needed

Automation and AI is moving at breakneck speed. Within a few years, we will see lots of jobs disapear. Already there are McDonalds being trailed with no staff. There are driverless cabs, trucks and buses in operation. Factory jobs are increasingly being replaced by robots. During Covid we saw changes to retail, education and business that are still having effects. Retailers now no longer need huge stores and staff, Universities can offer on-line education in many areas without needed huge investments in land and staff, and traditional books are replaced with online versions. Businesses can have staff work from home, or even replace them with AI, and no longer need huge inner city offices. All of these changes have flow on effects, like cafes that now have less customers, bookstores that arent needed etc. So there will be a lot less jobs, and more people out of work.

But this will be so massive, that it will affect business. If there are less people with money to spend, this will impact business, who will then need to cut back, reduce staff etc. And governments will need to spend more on welfare, while recieving less taxes from income and purchases. It could be the start of a downward spiral that could destroy economies worldwide.

So what is the answer?

A Universal Basic Income (UBI). This is a social welfare payment that is made to every working age person. It is not income tested, and applies to every person in the nation. It has to be high enough for people to live and also have money left to spend. It has been trailed in some nations, and it works.

So why everyone?

Firstly, there will be no need for Centrelink. If everyone gets a payment, then this can be closed. People can decide to keep working full time, and have more money, cut back to part time, or not work at all. It gives people back a life. Humans did not always work. We work to enable ourselves to live. If we can work less, we can have time to persue other interests, like hobbies, gardening, education spending time with families etc. These can change over a lifetime, so people can decide when to work more and when to cut back. This will free up more casual and part time jobs. And yes, some people will decide that they want to sit around all day and watch TV. Thats fine. Its a choice.
Business will keep operating and have customers. So the economy keeps working.

How will we afford it? Aside from savings by not needing Centrelink etc, we only need to revise the way we tax. At present the largest businesses pay no tax, because they send it offshore. The only tax collected is from GST, which is a value added tax. One idea might be to instead tax on turnover, which could be a very small rate on top of the GST, or replace the GST. Another option might be to put a base rate on products, for example 10% on all mining products etc, even those exported. Income tax could be removed, and businesses could reduce wages paid (without a reduction to the worker of the Nett ammount) as incentives etc. There are plenty of options and governments have already started looking at it.

The biggest obstacle will be the people themselves. There will be a group who will not want it just because it will mean that some people might decide to do nothing. This envy and jealousy will be a major reason for them to oppose it. It will bring about a better distribution of wealth, and a happier society, but some people would rather see others live in poverty. This is real, and is the reason why we still have a war on drugs. Our governmen is aware of research and trials in other nations where all drugs were legalised, as long as they were obtained through doctors. Initially drug use went up, then dropped massively. Drug deaths dropped, because people were seeing doctors, and drugs came from pharmacies so were safer. But the best part was that drug related crime disappeared, so much that prisons strted to empty. So better all round. But we wont see it here in a hurry, because if a party introduces this today, people would oppose it and would vote them out. The majority of people want others to suffer and be punished for what they dont agree with. Envy and jealousy. So this require governments to educate people over time.

Some people have estimated that we will hit a crisis point in 10 years. Others say that the recent advancements in AI might make it 5.
What do you think?

Comments

        • I think you need to actually read up on it, because it absolutely doesn’t say governments can’t spend infinitely without consequences. The consequences are highlighted even in the single sentence definition of MMT.

          Your straw man argument is incredibly ignorant.

          • @JumperC: You are simply incorrect. I work in that field so I know what I am saying. I obviously trying to make it simple but if you want to get technical, have a read at investopedia version of that definition.

            Whichever way you are seeing it, finally sanity prevailed and most credible global economists have disowned MMT and I think that's what matters.

            • @burningrage: Even in your cited source (quoted below) which is incredibly biased you’re still wrong.

              “While supporters of modern monetary theory acknowledge that inflation is theoretically a possible outcome from such spending”

              What did we do during the pandemic? MMT. What is the consequence now? Inflation.

  • Not on our taxpayer money otherwise why bother working?

    • Why work a job with stress and overtime when you could flip burgers?

      • Not all job are stressful and overtime inducing, and if nobody works, then there is no economy.

        • So, people will still work for the same reasons people do now.

          Economies will generally require people to work but it’s not necessarily a requirement, productivity is. You can be employed and unproductive or unemployed and productive. They are not the same thing.

          • @JumperC: Unemployed and productive.

            You mean like volunteers. Can't imagine a country run by volunteers 100% or even 50%.

            Also can't see the worth of it if you don't earn it. That's why Universal Basic Income will never work unless that country agrees for perpetual mediocrity.

            • +1

              @burningrage: I think you’re confused and think UBI means people won’t also work. There’s plenty of people eligible for the pension who still work.

              In UBI trials people tended to work more, not less.

  • Albo in a chopper, the rest sitting around the fire…

  • +1

    The rich and wealthy will be against it. Money for you means less money for them. The wealthy would rather start a war to purge some human.

  • If UBI is ever a thing, it'll be tied to a CBDC and don't be surprised when that money has an expiry date, you use it or lose it and you're essentially treading water.

  • -1

    A few comments.
    - As Mistredo commented "Australia spends roughly $200 billion on social welfrare each year. If you divide it by population and by number of months in year it is $646 per month, so UBI is not unthinkable when you think about how much is already being spent."
    - Then there is the cost to provide that service, which includes offices, staff, power, electricity etc. None of this would be needed as well.If everyone is getting the payment, it could be ran with little effort, and most likely ran by AI.
    - In the past when new technologies arose, we always had areas where we needed humans. This is now the issue, because there will no be a new industry around AI. AI will replace the need for humans in so many areas. This is why this means massive change. Depending on the person asked, figures could be as high as 9 jobs in ten made redundant. AI has already be used to create cheaper AI. It isnt as many people think, just self driving cars or Siri. It is AI having access to all of the information available to mankind, and learning from its actions, just like humans do. It means that the millions of lines of code to drive a car wont be needed because AI will drive like we do. It doesnt need to be think for itself and be self aware to be able to do things that humans could only do.
    -AI agents are already available. You can literally give it an instruction like you might give to an assistant, eg I need to go to sydney for a conference at Darling Habour for XYZ event, organise it for me. It will book tickets, flights, transfers, accomodation etc and if you allow it, can pay for them and give you your itenery, then remind you etc.This literally has come about in months, not years. You can ask it to make a 30 second advertisment for a product, and it will give you a decent lifelike advert with computer generated people, and a soundtrack, and copy all done without humans. Yes its a little crude, but it will only be a short time until it is perfect.
    -If the wealthy and business do not have people to buy their products and services, they will fail. They need customers with money to spend.
    -Yes, prices for goods and services in a lot of areas may drop because less humans means less labour inputs. But that will still leave a massive number of people out of work, with no jobs for them to do.
    Like it or not, massive change is on the horizon. We knew it was coming, but advances just this year have brought it closer than anyone could have expected. Maybe a UBI isnt the answer, but I haven't heard of any alternatives being proposed.Personally, I like the idea of moving to a Star Trek style future, where technology provides us with our needs and we get to chose what we want to do, and money isnt needed for the majority of people. Sure its a utopia and may not ever arrive, but even if we get half way it would be a better existence for mankind.

    • FUD
      Do you realize there are more people retiring than people entering the workforce in developed countries?

    • +4

      Personally, I like the idea of moving to a Star Trek style future, where technology provides us with our needs and we get to chose what we want to do, and money isnt needed for the majority of people

      It's a lovely idea.

      Of course, it's also fiction, so there's that.

      But, yeah, it's important to have ideals to work towards, especially if it motivates our work. Like with Sugarcandy Mountain.

  • UBI will never happen under an LNP. Or as long as their ideology remains. And all politics is lurching right.
    The current big Australia model will wipe the floor with us, before we look like getting any UBI.

    Slaves will always be needed. If only to dig graves or light the pyres.

    • It basically happened during the pandemic with jobseeker, JobKeeper, suspended mutual obligations etc. It’s basically an eventual certainty, if (and this is a big if) countries remain democratic.

      • You mean the current gold standard Trump "gun toting", no morals,God told me to, USA democracy, or the grown up version?

        • Both probably meet the minimum standards (for now) which are pretty low.

  • No.

    I predict the opposite.

    AI is a tool. Like all tools, those who understand and can use them will be sought after (aka Jobs).

    Those who cant, will languish and be left behind (aka no jobs).

    There will be an abundance of AI assisted jobs.

    Source: I am an employer (accounting/finance) that actively encourages my staff to learn and use AI. ChatGPT has accelerated staff productivity immensely. Prompt engineering is where it's at now.

    • +1

      ChatGPT has accelerated staff productivity immensely.

      So you can do more with less staff. Thus requiring less employees in your industry overall eventually?

      • +2

        No , they'll just employ the physics defying capitalist model of infinite growth. All he needs is more customers. And more, and more and more and more………

      • +1

        Actually the opposite, I am recruiting and cant find enough staff.

        I am competing with larger firms, and AI has given us an edge.

        • Actually the opposite, I am recruiting and cant find enough staff.

          I am competing with larger firms, and AI has given us an edge.

          Right, so you're able to do more with less, and are getting an edge vs larger firms that rely on more bodies.

          So, not the opposite at all.

          Being more productive is literally doing more with less staff. It doesn't mean 'you have enough staff' or 'less overall' that's a function of growing the business. But ultimately as you take business from less productive firms, less people are required overall.

    • +1

      Well, I have some bad news for you. Once AGI arrives nobody will need your services anymore, because anyone who will need accounting will give all their data to AGI, and it will do everything for them.

      So what's your plan once we don't need accountants?

      • It's unlikely our clients would solely trust an AGI with their personal wealth and financial interests. The majority of our business is about building relationships. Should an AGI be able to compete in this arena, we will utilise AGI and deploy our staff to augment and compliment AGI capabilities.

        • +2

          I am afraid you are underestimating what is coming. Your clients value trust and relationships, because not all humans have the same capabilities, and they need to be convinced you are capable. Why wouldn't they use AGI if it will be faster, cheaper, and better than you? They might be hesitant initially, but they will try it and give it a go. Saying you will compliment AGI's capabilities means you will offer something that AGI will not be capable of. There will be definitely some industries where that might be possible, but I don't see how accounting could be one of them.

          • @Mistredo:

            Why wouldn't they use AGI if it will be faster, cheaper, and better than you?

            if

            If you think of accounting as "processing data to formulate accounts", sure, technology will make it faster. But that's an incredibly naive view of what an accountant is/does (in the same way 'calculators' haven't replaced the world's need for mathematicians).

            Making the decisions about which boxes they should go into in the first place (and advising why a client with an upcoming divorce shouldn't do a hire purchase for new business equipment) are the reasons you need a human to fulfil the accountant role.

            • +1

              @CrowReally: I am well aware accounting is not just number crunching and spreadsheet filling, but I am not sure you realize AGI will not be just a smarter calculator. AGI will excel at your example and will be capable of analyzing client circumstances and advising the same thing.

              • @Mistredo: Do you have any evidence to back this up, or are you stating marketing speak and fanciful promises as fact?

                Why don't you also promise it'll give us a nice backrub while it does it too? Oh, and can you have mine also write award winning novels (novels are just plot formulas mate of course AGI can do them as well), because then I'll get some nice side income selling those.

                • +1

                  @CrowReally: Your brain is evidence it is possible. If you are capable of that, a machine can be capable of that too, and humans are progressing pretty fast toward being able to replicate human intelligence. It is only a matter of time. This decade or next decade.

                  AGI is just intelligence (a brain), so it will not have a physical form to give you a back rub. Sorry! Nonetheless, eventually, robotics will catch up, but that will take longer than AGI.

                  • @Mistredo: No worries mate the massive paycheck that comes from being a successful international novelist will let me hire a few actual humans to do the backrubs

                    • +1

                      @CrowReally: I am afraid you will not be the only one with the idea of using it to write a novel, so I wouldn't bet on it. Jokes aside, yes, AI will create art including novels. It is already happening in some way: a child book created by AI, a photo generated by AI winning competition, another one this time in Australia, and not just photos are winning competitions but paintings too.

                      Our AI is currently comparable to computers we had in 90s, so just imagine what will possible in two decades! What a time to be alive!

                      • @Mistredo: Cool, so magic box AGI will basically replace all the accountants, all the novelists, all the plane pilots, all the.. actually, it's probably faster to list people who it won't replace: those people who hold the "SLOW/STOP" sign at roadside construction, prostitutes and the guy who comes to the office to water the plants.

                        Feasible, realistic, absolutely going to happen in a decade or two.

                        You've convinced me. Well, you and your crystal ball.

                        • +1

                          @CrowReally:

                          actually, it's probably faster to list people who it won't replace

                          So you finally get it why discussion about UBI is important?

                          you and your crystal ball

                          You don't have to believe me, actually, me saying a decade or two is very pessimistic. AI researches who are actively working on it believe it will happen in a few years. E.g., Google DeepMind CEO Says Some Form of AGI Possible in a Few Years.

                          Hand weavers also didn't believe power looms would replace them. You can stay ignorant, and maybe it is even better for your sanity. Ignorance is bliss.

                          • @Mistredo: If ignorance is being skeptical of

                            1. AGI (yet to be demonstrated as capable) will be able to flawlessly replace most of human thinking jobs with trivial effort (bye accountants, novelists, lawyers, architects etc) in 'a few years' (or even 'a pessimistic ten years').
                            2. At the same time, UBI (also never demonstrated as capable) will be implemented and the majority of jobless individuals will be getting income from 'somewhere' as well to alleviate this

                            then I guess you can dump me in with the rest of the dolts.

                            But sure, the notion of a few tech firms owning a magic box that effortlessly does the work of millions of individuals, who are now unemployed (but they get their living wage from.. taxes on the tech firm?) is absolutely something that's about to emerge 'soon'.

                            I wonder if it will come into existence before 'the paperless office', which is also coming 'soon' as well (earliest mention was in the 1960's but let's be charitable and stick with the 1975 'coming soon' prediction in Bloomberg Businessweek). If it doesn't arrive in two years time it'll have been coming 'soon' for 50 years! We can order a special cake to celebrate!

                            Interestingly your AGI promises line up exactly with the Star Trek ideals of OP a few posts up. I wonder what that says about how realistic you both are.

                            Don't worry, you're both not wrong yet. But.. 'soon'.

                            • +1

                              @CrowReally: I am not 100% sure UBI will be the solution. It is one possibility, and it is good to discuss it because we will face this problem.

                              AGI will either create hell or heaven, but I am 100% sure AGI will come at some point and will be capable of replacing most thinking jobs. The only question is when. I think a decade or two is very reasonable considering what experts are saying and our current rate of advancements.

                              Allow me to ask you, do you think AGI capable of human cognitive capabilities is not possible? If not, why not? If yes, when do you think it will come and what makes you think it will not as capable as I am portraying?

                              • @Mistredo:

                                Allow me to ask you, do you think AGI capable of human cognitive capabilities is not possible? If not, why not? If yes, when do you think it will come and what makes you think it will not as capable as I am portraying?

                                I'm not a boffin, but let's (charitably) take it as a given that if you buy enough computers and spend enough money, you can make an AI version of someone that's basically reacting almost indistinguishably than a person's brain.

                                1. Per trapper's comment, this is going to be ridiculously expensive. Likely prohibitively. How would you make your money back by having a copy of someone's brain?
                                2. Whose brain are we copying, by the way? You know we're all individuals, right? You can't just grab "society's brain".
                                3. Once we've copied them, we will have access to their good emotions/creativity etc? The sort of thinking that makes art and problem solves complex human situations (like whether a divorcing dude needs to buy work equipment on hire purchase or not)?
                                4. Okay great but now we have their erratic bad emotions too. How do we stop that bit of them? Who decides what a 'bad' emotion is? How do you test that they're all gone?

                                Your science fiction ideas have a ton of logistic problems that are yet to be resolved. It is ridiculous to tell someone 'AGI is doing all the things soon' because it's patently false.

                                This is "we got a car to stay in the lines on a test circuit" = "all driving jobs are soon to go" nonsense.

                                You have the same certainty in your optimism as the 'to the moon' cryptobros. If that makes you happy, great, but come join us back in the real world at some stage. Or send us a postcard from the moon.

                                • +1

                                  @CrowReally: You are asking some great questions!

                                  Per trapper's comment, this is going to be ridiculously expensive. Likely prohibitively. How would you make your money back by having a copy of someone's brain?

                                  The current AI research is already expensive. OpenAI has spent more than $100 million to train GPT-4. Microsoft invested $10 billion to OpenAI. Big tech is motivated to invest, because if they don't they become irrelevant, and they have hundreds of billion of dollars in cash. Universities are spending millions on AI.

                                  Everything was initially expensive. Computers in 60s were ridiculously expensive, and you can get a cheap computer today. Human brain consumes only 20 watts, so we can eventually run AGI pretty cheap. Not to mention as society we get more efficient in harvesting energy.

                                  Whose brain are we copying, by the way? You know we're all individuals, right? You can't just grab "society's brain".

                                  We are not copying a brain. At least not in traditional sense, we are creating a machine that is capable of same things as a human brain. It will be able to create a model of the real world and see connections and reason about it. Your brain consists of multiple parts, and we are interested only in neocortex that is responsible for the thinking part.

                                  Once we've copied them, we will have access to their good emotions/creativity etc? The sort of thinking that makes art and problem solves complex human situations (like whether a divorcing dude needs to buy work equipment on hire purchase or not)?

                                  We will not copy emotions unless we want, but I don't think it is desirable. Why do you think emotions are needed? How emotions would help in your example? Isn't your example quite rational requiring no emotions?

                                  Okay great but now we have their erratic bad emotions too. How do we stop that bit of them? Who decides what a 'bad' emotion is? How do you test that they're all gone?

                                  That's why I feel emotions are not desirable in an artificial machine.

                                  You have the same certainty in your optimism as the 'to the moon' cryptobros. If that makes you happy, great, but come join us back in the real world at some stage. Or send us a postcard from the moon.

                                  There is a huge difference between AGI and other sci-fi inventions. AGI already exists, and it is your brain. We are not creating something new.

                          • @Mistredo: Some form of AGI may well be possible, but it's not just going to waltz in and replace everyone's jobs.

                            It's going to cost tens of millions to build, and will require thousands or tens of thousands of computer servers to even run at all.

                            Is it cheaper to pay for an advanced AI engine to do your accounting, or to pay an accountant who will probably be using AI tools to greatly increase his productivity already anyway?

                            • +1

                              @trapper:

                              Some form of AGI may well be possible, but it's not just going to waltz in and replace everyone's jobs.

                              Maybe not overnight, but it will happen faster than most people think. It will give companies huge advantage if they reduce their costs and companies that fail to adapt will just disappear.

                              It's going to cost tens of millions to build, and will require thousands or tens of thousands of computer servers to even run at all.

                              GPT-4 is already like that. They spent more than $100 million to train it, and it it very expensive to run it. Yet, you can get 1000 tokens cost for a few cents. Big tech will subsidize it and time will make it cheaper.

                              It will be expensive initially. The same way how early mainframes were. Nonetheless, big tech companies are sitting on hundreds of billion of dollars in cash that they are willing to spend. E.g., Microsoft investing $10 billion in OpenAI.

                              Is it cheaper to pay for an advanced AI engine to do your accounting, or to pay an accountant who will probably be using AI tools to greatly increase his productivity already?

                              AGI will benefit from scale as it can do accounting for everyone, so it will be definitely cheaper than a regular accountant.

                              • @Mistredo: Do you not see the contradiction in the idea that AGI will be exclusively available to big corporations and the wealthy, resulting in widespread unemployment and financial difficulties for the majority of people, while also being inexpensive enough for everyone to use at a low cost, costing only a few cents?

                                • @trapper: He almost got there with the "oh wait but maybe some other people will use it to write novels as well" bit but I couldn't get across the line.

                                • +1

                                  @trapper: How is it contradicting? I didn't say it will be exclusively available to big corps or only wealthy. They will develop it, but they will sell it to others.

                                  • +1

                                    @Mistredo: If everyone has equal access to the AI then just ask it to make you some money doing whatever it is that other people are using it for to make money lol

                                    • +1

                                      @trapper: But if everybody asks AGI to write a novel, how will you make money with it? It is like giving everyone one million. Nothing changes.

                                      People will keep making money in the post-AGI world with manual labor, and these people will use affordable AGI provided by big tech. E.g., a tradie doing his taxes with AGI or a company manufacturing something using AGI for all their current office jobs.

                                  • @Mistredo:

                                    I didn't say it will be exclusively available to big corps or only wealthy.

                                    Well that seems to be the primary concern of all these UBI supporters.

                              • @Mistredo:

                                AGI will benefit from scale as it can do accounting for everyone, so it will be definitely cheaper than a regular accountant.

                                And all we need to do is get everyone's personal circumstances, tax history and all the accounting and tax laws into it so it can operate! Simple!

                                • +1

                                  @CrowReally: But that's exactly what AGI will be capable of. It will scan your emails, your invoices and all data. Ask you about your personal circumstances and advice what is best for you.

                                  You said yourself you are not a boffin, so how can you judge what will be possible?

                                  • @Mistredo:

                                    But that's exactly what AGI will be capable of

                                    lol look at you, reading from the manual of features of a product that doesn't even exist

                                    I think I understand the game now. Every time I mention a complex problem, you handwave and say "in the future AGI will solve that trivially, because it's (going to be) good at that". Oh well, alright, glad we straightened that out, yeah?

                                    You remind me of the cryptoshills telling everyone how blockchain was here to save the world, patent laws, contracts, property ownership, all sorts of things were going to be 'fixed' by the blockchain in the future.

                                    The (small) advantage is their wishful overstatements are being discovered sooner than yours.

                                    • +1

                                      @CrowReally: AGI is intelligence that matches the human neocortex, so if your brain can do accounting with enough training, so can AGI. So yes, every complex problem solvable by the average brain will be solvable by AGI. It is simple as that. I am not inventing artificial problems and solutions. I am using the current brain as a benchmark for future possibilities.

                                      Based on your responses I understand you don't believe we can replicate human intelligence in machines, but why not? Nature did that with trial and error, so we should be able to do it with enough resources.

                                      This is not comparable to crypto as I am not trying to sell you anything. There is no way to buy in your future by getting some tokens. I don't profit if you believe it or not. I am just informing you of what is coming.

                                      • @Mistredo: Alright, try this one on for size.

                                        1. Yes I believe it will be possible to replicate a human brain's ability with technology but
                                        2. I also believe the technology being available for suitable uptake society-wide is more than 70 years off

                                        Now tell me how I have to get ready for redundancy (as a novelist) because "oh no it's actually only 7 years off, and the proof is X".

                                        Just as a reminder, screen technology is now commonplace and 'the paperless office' STILL can't get its shit together 50 years later.

                                        Saying "AGI is just human brains, and it's happening soon!" is baseless optimism. My office is FULL of paper. FULL. Why is there some much f—-ing paper every-goddamn-where if well established (existing! not imagined!) technology was meant to have fixed this decades back?

                                        Fix the easy promises/problems and then maybe I'll listen to your sci-fi dreams.

                                        • +1

                                          @CrowReally:

                                          I also believe the technology being available for suitable uptake society-wide is more than 70 years off

                                          How did you come up with this number? My numbers are based on what AI researchers are saying. Yes, your paperless office didn't happen in ten years as it was promised, but there are many things that happened much faster. Everyone owns a smartphone now for example that is connected to the internet providing access to the whole of humanity's knowledge.

                                          Also, I am not surprised the paperless office didn't manifest to the full extent. There is not enough money to be made, and it is not an interesting problem for our brightest minds to work on.

                                          Now tell me how I have to get ready for redundancy (as a novelist) because "oh no it's actually only 7 years off, and the proof is X".

                                          Start thinking about how we should shape our society if we will not have enough jobs for everyone. Even if you manage to find another job not everyone will be able to.

                                          • @Mistredo:

                                            Yes, your paperless office didn't happen in ten years as it was promised, but there are many things that happened much faster.

                                            Yeah, not only didn't it happen in ten years as promised, it also didn't happen in ten years as promised five times (because we're at fifty years now) and it still hasn't happened.

                                            It's a massive credibility fail for tech based futurism. You're like the actual doomsday cult leaders who say "The world will end on 12 April, 2007" and then when it doesn't happen, you mutter something and then make a similar prediction eight years later.

                                            Also, I am not surprised the paperless office didn't manifest to the full extent. There is not enough money to be made, and it is not an interesting problem for our brightest minds to work on

                                            Take 1 (sarcastic): Sure, how many trees the planet has and all that, not really a big thing. Boring too.
                                            Take 2 (responsive): If there wasn't any money to be made and it wasn't an interesting problem, why were they announcing/working on it then? (Followup question for after you acknowledge that with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see their predictions about the ability and utility of the product were way off: Yeah alright, now how are you sure that's not exactly what's happening now/again with AGI?)

                                            Thanks for showing us all how out of touch you are. Maybe AGI (due next week) will be able to help with that, after it composes every known song in existence while destroying the music industry singlehanded.

                                          • @Mistredo: Incidentally

                                            My numbers are based on what AI researchers are saying. Yes, your paperless office didn't happen in ten years as it was promised

                                            is

                                            My numbers are based off current tech predictions. Yes, the tech predictions for the paperless office were over a ten year period, which has now turned out to be more than fifty years and still hasn't happened, but I don't see why that would mean tech predictions are wildly unreliable

                                            which is the fumble of the year

                            • @trapper: GPT4 came out and within a week AI progressed to where we expcted it to be in 10 years. It passed the Californian Bar exam. It passed medical exams. It even "pretended" to be sight impaired to ask someone to read a captcha code to access information that was out of its data set. It literally learned and found other ways to do things. People have found incredible uses and ways to automate work. Someone even used it to write code to create another AI. It wasnt as good, but it cost around $70. And that tells you a lot. The initial cost was massive, but it used itself and its ability to learn to create a version of itself. The cost of entry just dropped in a week to be where anyone can access it. You can load a version that is hosted on your PC.
                              So the idea that a dedicated version to do taxes could replace 9 in 10 accountants by the end of the year is not unreasonable.
                              And if a UBI is implemented, there is no reason to think that we would need accountants, other than for business use. Accounting is one of the jobs that will be affected by AI.
                              And this is true for so many other industries. Don't think that we have years either. The capabilities are not increasing at a nice linear rate, but are improving exponentially.
                              This nothing like the industrial revolution, or the introduction of computers and the internet. This wont create new jobs, it will just replace jobs. Things like driverless vehicles have relied on millions of lines of programming to cater for any little eventuality. AI throws this away, because you have a system that learns and "thinks". It reacts and makes choices. If you havent tried it, or seen what it can do now, take a look. It is scary, yet amazing. This replaces humans in many areas, whether you like it or not. It doesnt require further versions, because what we have can learn and improve itself.

                              • @thesilverstarman:

                                So the idea that a dedicated version to do taxes could replace 9 in 10 accountants by the end of the year is not unreasonable.

                                lol, mate you're in a dream world. I hope at the end of the year you reflect on this a bit.

                                • @trapper: An Oxford university study in 2017 estimated that by 2033 that 40% of jobs would be replaced by AI. Goldman Sachs published a report 2 months ago that estimated that by the end of this year, 18% of jobs could be replaced by AI, and by 2025, 1/4 of all jobs. The majority of these is expected to be in finance, accounting, law and media. Accountants will be needed for analysis and interpretation rather than just recording, compiling, categorising, and summarising of data, as all of these things can be done by AI. Payroll, billing, record-keeping, etc., are all able to be done by AI. Risk management, simulation, etc., also by AI. This means that you won't need as many to do what they now do.
                                  I was also talking about if a UBI was introduced, along with simplified taxation. The need for personal tax advice etc would drop.
                                  But in the meantime, Banks, Accounting firms etc will all have job losses.

                              • @thesilverstarman:

                                GPT4 came out and within a week AI progressed to where we expcted it to be in 10 years. It passed the Californian Bar exam. It passed medical exams. It even "pretended" to be sight impaired to ask someone to read a captcha code to access information that was out of its data set. It literally learned and found other ways to do things.

                                GPT4 doesn't 'think', it's a gigantic pattern matching database. This whole thread could have been avoided if you'd just told us all from the get-go you had no idea how the technology works, and we shouldn't trust your insights on it. Go do some reading on 'the Chinese room' and stop daydreaming about Star Trek.

                                • @CrowReally: seeing as every comment you make on a post is dismissive anf negative, Im not surprised. It is not a giant pattern matchng database. To put it simply, AI works by combining large data sets with intuitive processing algorithms. AI can manipulate these algorithms by learning behavior patterns within the data set. It isnt just one algorithm, its multiple. It can solved problems that it hasnt been trained to do. The algorithms are self learning, and in some cases, self adapting and can modify their own code. So as a simple explanation, yes, they do learn.

                            • @trapper:

                              Is it cheaper to pay for an advanced AI engine to do your accounting, or to pay an accountant who will probably be using AI tools to greatly increase his productivity already anyway?

                              This is the answer. Because exactly this. AI will replace people by increasing productivity long before it replaces 100% of people, it will make 1 person be able to do the work of 10. The social effects of 90% less people being needed to work are more or less the same as 100%.

                              If/when AGI happens, we'll have bigger things to worry about than the economy. The moment we have an AGI as smart as a person is pretty much the end of humanity.

                              Also you overestimate the compute load required to run AI, the training is pretty intensive, but it's relatively low intensity to run. This is what makes you think it's a contradiction. Big companies need to mine huge amounts of data, process it extensively in vast data centers. But once the models are created they require tiny fractions of a cent to run.

                              • @JumperC:

                                it will make 1 person be able to do the work of 10

                                This has already happened many times throughout history.

                                And wow would you look at that… more people currently employed right now than ever before in the history of the world.

                                • @trapper: Once, not many times. But if you don’t understand the difference between replacing human labour and replacing human minds… The last time it happened it mostly put animals out of work. They didn’t get better jobs.

                                  And even only replacing half what humans had to offer caused most of a whole generation to be out of work for their lives.

                                  Go and look what happened during the Industrial Revolution, if you want to claim historical precedent at least know what actually happened.

                                  • @JumperC:

                                    Once, not many times.

                                    Wrong again. Technological advance is a continual process, old jobs are constantly being replaced with newer better jobs.

                                • @trapper:

                                  more people currently employed right now than ever before in the history of the world.

                                  Also worth noting, we've added nearly 3 billion people in the last 30 years, but only 1 billion extra people regarded as employed. We're clearly already doing more with less and employment growth has been driven by population growth, not finding new jobs.

                                • @trapper: You are talking about labour intensive jobs. Computers gave us a faster way to work but there was a net rise in jobs. This is different, because it replaces "thinking" jobs where humans have thought themselves to be irreplaceable. Electricity didnt kill all candlemaking jobs, and AI wont remove all jobs, but the change is massive. Look at the writers strike in Hollywood. The writers want the studios to agree to not use AI to replace them. The studios refuse. If you have a TV show with a team of say 10 writers, and they all get an average of 70k per year, plus benfits plus the costs to employ them, including office space etc, you could say 100k each. If you can use AI and have 2 writers to tweak it etc, you can save 800k a year. If you can use AI to provide digital actors, replace account staff etc, you might be able to double this. All of a sudden you can produce the same show in a much smaller place, at a fraction of the cost. There is no way that any business will not use as much AI as they can, because if they dont they will not be competitive. And they wont slowly cut staff, because the change over can be fast.

                                  • @thesilverstarman:

                                    Computers gave us a faster way to work but there was a net rise in jobs. This is different, because it replaces "thinking" jobs where humans have thought themselves to be irreplaceable.

                                    Computers have replaced many 'thinking' jobs too - yet still they created even more new ones.

                        • +1

                          @CrowReally:

                          it's probably faster to list people who it won't replace: those people who hold the "SLOW/STOP" sign at roadside construction, prostitutes and the guy who comes to the office to water the plants.

                          Ah. We've already replaced at least two of those, for some people possibly the third. :\ And none of those really required AI to replace.

                          https://www.datasigns.com.au/Products/Portable-Traffic-Light…
                          https://www.plantmaid.com/best-indoor-plant-watering-systems…

          • @Mistredo: Please read "The majority of our business is about building relationships"

            • +1

              @xavster: I think people overestimate this, particularly among younger generation customers who want to avoid having to build a relationship, to the point they’ll wait in a queue at a self checkout to avoid talking to a waiting cashier.

      • Oh hey, I forgot to ask, the "AGI is going to replace all accountants" point you just made, can you give us a source on that?

        Was it something a Google AGI tech scientist said?

        Was it in a research paper about automation of future industries?

        Or.. did your mind invent it, and then you typed it into the comment box, and that's that? It's not just a "trust me bro" brain fart … is it?

        • Blockbuster turned down buying Netflix. Those in the know knew what was coming even if it wasn't there yet and just in experimental stages. Enough has been demonstrated to know that it's coming at this point.

          Humans will soon not be the most intelligent beings on the planet. There may be a window where human jobs which involve intelligence are all replaced. Beyond that is the significantly more interesting issue though, humans being replaced.

          • @CodeExplode: Well even if their plan goes full to fruitition and we all end up getting replaced, I still ain't paying their late fees #NiceFailBlockbuster

        • This will convince anyone able to concentrate through it.

          https://www.amazon.com.au/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategi…

          If you want to especially torture someone, give them the audio book. It's pretty meticulous, well researched and oh so tedious. It will leave you with zero doubt that if we get AGI, we are not long for this world, forget worrying about employment.

          We don't really need AI of any sort to replace a good proportion of accountants though, automated ingestation of business records is making what used to be a tedious manual job the sort of thing most people can do in a few minutes a quarter, and one accountant can oversee a hundred times as many clients as they used to. That leaves them time to actually do the personal interaction (if that's what their clients still want) and spend less time on tedious work.

          And given how often I've seen accountant's completely (profanity) over people's businesses through incorrect advice, there's something to be said for offering them some assistance though AI.

  • UBI is the simplest way. The real welfare was to the private job agencies who got money to harras the poor.

    In monopoly everyone starts with the same amount of money and everyone receives a basic income.
    The bank is the state. It controls the money and it controls the land. By distributing both there is "play".

    Without other players landholders can't collect rents and players need income or they bow out.
    In real life now out means death or stop playing within the bounds of the state. If you don't have money why shouldn't you take what you need. Rabbits don't take a thirty year loan for the use of a field. The get what they need and try to avoid those that wish to harm them.

  • +1

    Firstly, there will be no need for Centrelink. If everyone gets a payment, then this can be closed.

    We don't even need to worry about the AI, you've just gotten rid of 33,000 jobs yourself :D

    • +1

      They will get UBI so everything is taken care of.

  • +1

    The problem is bigger than money, people require a sense of worth. Sense of worth for Most of the population is linked with their employment\contribution.

    Artistic roles are almost already gone.

    For those that say “wait”, do not see the exponential take-up of AI.

    Good or bad, we can’t go back and society will change.

    • Humans love to be productive, it's what all our hobbies are. Just like dogs love to chase something. It's what we're built for. It's extremely stressful to not be productive.

      However it doesn't mean it has to be the high stress type of productive tied to survival that people experience today, worsening the poorer you are and the more destitute the part of the world where you live. Ideally we'd raise people up closer to the other end of the spectrum.

  • This will be opposed by the right-wing as they will bleat it will lead to laziness, stunt innovation and make people too reliant on the state which will lead to a one global government.

    The rich will absolutely hate it as it will lower inequality and their power.

    The only thing massive enough to bring a social disruption this large would be a world war. After WW2 the world changed in many respects for the better. There is no incentive for the rich to introduce a UBI.

    • Exactly.
      There have been a couple of instances in the last few days where more 'conservative' types have openly questioned why those in Australia currently on government support payments needed an increase. I think the current Treasurer handled it well.

    • If they no longer have people to buy their goods and face an increasing class of poor people, they will want to protect themselves and keep their businesses going.

  • +1

    I am in favour of a ubi but I just want to say that no technology has ever created long term unemployment for a society. Not the invention of the wheel, factory automation or the internet. The unemployment rate fluctuates up and down but for the most part the overwhelming majority are employed. When certain jobs disappear we just create endless new jobs, many which are pointless.

    There is a technofeudalist characteristic to our society that wants to see everyone employed in a hierarchy even if it's very inefficient. It use to be that the majority of people worked in production and manufacturing. Technology reduced employment in those sectors but now the greatest growing employment sector is the service industry, specifically administration. Endless offices of people doing very inefficient work the value of which is highly questionable.

    • My comment from 3 days ago:

      Automation, AI, UBI, taxes, drugs, …

      The whole post is a mess of topics.

  • AI and automation are advancing fast, which could lead to job losses. Instead of UBI, we should consider other solutions like education, job retraining, and fostering innovation for new industries. Addressing concerns about UBI and drug legalisation is essential for a balanced discussion. Let's explore alternatives to manage the potential employment crisis.

  • +1

    What happens if/when your UBI is dependent on you not spending more than $x or x% of it on meat or carbon intensive expenditure (you drove too far from your 15 minute city this month)?

    What if your UBI is only paid if you got that new fancy untested mRNA vaccine that has no long term safety studies and the companies that produced are immune from damages if it hurt/damages you?

    What if your UBI can be cut if you say something mean or offensive about the government or it's policies?

  • +2

    Yes comrades! Lets get the guillotines ready.

  • AI is like the 3D printer fad that swept through a while back.
    Lunatics raving about how we'll be printing cars and mobile phones in a year or so,
    And then the dust settles and you wake the fark up.

    • +1

      The world's biggest tech companies weren't all scrambling and in code red over 3D printers.

      • Code red. Lol.
        Yeah, is this a metaverse level code red or VR level code red.
        Or maybe wearables level code red. Crypto level code red maybe.

        • +1

          Google never declared an internal code red over those. You're writing fan fiction about reality to downplay parts of reality you don't like. It's weird.

          • @CodeExplode: Its sarcasm man, to emphasise the nothing in tech is code red.
            Unless you loose the nuclear launch codes or something.

            • +1

              @TSH: Google has reportedly declared an internal code red and their actions match, hastily rushing out their own AI against the apparent advice of their own engineers which was clearly quite broken.

              Those other things were not declared a code red situation by the biggest tech giants, so why use them as comparison?

              • @CodeExplode:

                Google has reportedly declared an internal code red and their actions match, hastily rushing out their own AI against the apparent advice of their own engineers which was clearly quite broken.

                Because Google is something that could definitely be supplanted by ChatGPT.

                It's already better than Google for looking up most things quickly. Just don't trust it completely lol.

                • @trapper: Yep exactly, the point is that AI isn't just a 'tech buzzword' like those other things listed, even in the early days it's enough of a threat to panic one of the largest tech companies in the world.

  • Most people would just stop working then we would have too many jobs available

  • -1

    The advantage of Universal Basic Income is that there is very little administrative overhead. Unlike centrelink benefits, nobody needs to prove they are eligible as everyone is eligible and everyone gets paid the same amount. Money that would have otherwise been wasted on administration goes straight to the people instead.

    • yeah because no mistakes would happen, no one paid to the wrong account, no fraud, no overpayments to someone that has died. Everyone needs the same, no disabled people with much higher costs and needs, no one with kids or dependents etc etc. UBI would have a huge administrative overhead, to think otherwise is delusional.

Login or Join to leave a comment