Ask Siri to tell you a joke.

Well, the producers aren't being taxed to the point of being impoverished. They'd probably still be massively wealthy simply due to the vastly increased disparity in wealrth.

Presumably they'd at least be making UBI

Like if you have an income of a billion dollars and the tax rate is 50% you're still in gold plated yacht territory.

But their work and income would have to subsidize the people who are buying stuff from them

Drinking their own piss, in a way. It's not conducive to how modern economics works.

Hence why I described the free-riders as parasitic.

The system falls apart before it gets to that point.

In that extreme hypothetical example the producers would have clear incentive to curtail the free-riders.

I should get ya'll and lotus and start up Timcast IBS

In a less clear and less extreme real-world example, the people paying taxes would have incentive to prevent increases to UBI beyond subsistence.

I know Rye can be cogent

in VC

somewhat.

And would have incentive to lower the number of people receiving UBI.

Money, especially not backed by the gold standard, is essentially worth a miniscule percentage of the labor in the nation under that currency.

In order to have a UBI, you have to tax the labor to fund it, or print more money - which decreases that percentage of labor claim

So when everything is automated and AI does all the thinking our contribution will be creativity and making problems heh... also, how many ppl this kind of environment can sustain? UBI will probably be free food, basic healthcare, shelter, basic clothing and utilities. For everything extra we will have to earn somekind of "bitcoin".

gold has asighned value same as shells (polinesian islands i think)... you can assighn value to healthy living ... walk is already measurable... it can be mined

Presumably, it would be sustainable to the extent that resources such as metal, stone, necessary farmland, etc can stretch

I'm a free market capitalist at heart but if the trend in automation continues to the point of artificial general intelligence, then we're going to have to start thinking outside the box if we want to avoid dystopia.

Dystopia within the singularity is inevitable.

If that's the path we take.

AI for anything more than amusement is a bad idea.

We should be focusing on how to enhance humans using AI, as opposed to replacing them with it.

Unfortunately it's too powerful to prevent. It is too incredibly valuable and the first company or government to have one will have a massive advantage.

There's a race already underway towards AGI.

But while that's probably something we have to consider in our lifetimes, I'm more concerned about the next 10 years.

Let's consider what you said earlier

You'd said that the vote might have to be revoked to the 'freeloaders'.

also knowladge... we are already tracked... what you learn can be made measurable... anybody read ready player one? Concept of school is in the right direction just few corrections for making money is needed

I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for removing the vote from anyone.

But it may be necessary, right?

I'm just saying that democracy was only viable in societies where the vast majority were producers and wealth disparity was relatively low.

How do you prevent the monopoly in power from finding a way to cull the 'parasites' to prevent losing power?

Otherwise what you end up with is non-producers voting themselves the wealth of the producers, who obviously will use their relative power and resources to resist, and society breaks down.

You don't.

Either way you go in, it's a huge ethical black hole you don't come back out of.

Yep.

And we have to sort this stuff out right now, because the tech is here.

Self-driving cars and trucks, and Google Duplex are going to basically eliminate humans from tens of millions of jobs in the next ten years.