Yet another argument for UBI, this time because "AI".
The author misses one important, cold-blooded point: Why should someone receive UBI?
Present social systems are based on the idea that a few people are down on their lick. So you help them until they get back on their feet. Some few people make welfare their career, but that is a minority.
If nearly everyone is getting UBI, you have to ask: where is that much money coming from? If it exists, why would those few people/corporations/whatever agree to part with it? They must be immensely powerful, so why wouldn't they just say "no"?
The world is not a utopia. UBI is not going to happen. Not even because of AI.
At a certain point, employing humans will become pointless. Robots will be able to do everything a person can for cheaper. This will divide people into two camps: those who own enough shares of robot companies to live off of dividends, and those who don't. The latter will be destitute, and also by far the largest camp. You will have an army of millions of smart, capable, very angry, and very hungry people. They will go into revolt, unless you give them some solution. That is why you will do UBI.
The author misses one important, cold-blooded point: Why should someone receive UBI?
Present social systems are based on the idea that a few people are down on their lick. So you help them until they get back on their feet. Some few people make welfare their career, but that is a minority.
If nearly everyone is getting UBI, you have to ask: where is that much money coming from? If it exists, why would those few people/corporations/whatever agree to part with it? They must be immensely powerful, so why wouldn't they just say "no"?
The world is not a utopia. UBI is not going to happen. Not even because of AI.