What if we don’t hit AGI and instead the tools just get pretty good and put lots of people out of work while making the top 0.1% vastly richer? Now you’ve got no prospects, no power, and barely any money.
That's the scenario I'm assuming. Lots of people out of work, then they start working on ai and using it to solve the post-work survival problem.
But this relies on a few assumptions. 1) there will be open source AI that can solve low resource survival problems, 2) civilians will be able to run these AIs on whatever computing resources they're able to scrounge together, 3) the solutions the systems come up with will let civilians survive or revolt without access to high levels of capital, 4) the systems will NOT rise to the level of independent power gaining AGIs
Note that I have specifically assumed that we don't have independent AGIs. If we hit AGI, then I don't think we can assume that anyone will be able to use AI to solve the problems of post work survival. The AGI will do what it wants to do. I'm not sure how civilians should position themselves in that situation.
"At the core, welfare steals from all to provide for some."
Yep, I want a system of progressive taxation that provides negative pressure on wealth inequality while uplifting the poorest. I like this idea because I like liberty, and a rich person loses almost no agency by having some portion of their income or wealth taxed while a small stipend can make a huge difference in the choices available to a poor person. There's also the utilitarian argument that disproportionately burdening a small-ish number of rich people for the benefit of the majority is a net good. If private sector charity could achieve either of these goals (alleviation of wealth inequality or uplifting of the poor) as well as social welfare can, I'd argue for it instead, since at the end of the day I prefer it be voluntary, but I don't think that it's up to the task, which we can observe in today's charities. Do you have any evidentiary basis for the counter? Why would the system of voluntary charity suddenly improve its outcomes or have more money to spend?
"they ignore moral hazard"
Sometimes economic risks are negative, like spending your paycheck on lottery tickets, but other times they're positive, like starting a risky but ambitious startup or getting an education. If social welfare causes a significant change in the average person's risk tolerance, a claim that definitely requires substantiation, then I still might argue this isn't a net negative for the economy or society at large. Even if the claim is true, is using homelessness and privation as a threat (a threat often realized upon the unfortunate) a worthwhile ethical sacrifice? How much does it cost us not to do this, because I think it's worth some money.
"tend to produce worse outcomes"
If this is true, which I also wouldn't take for granted, then you'd still need to factor in the asymmetry in access that private charities have vs a social welfare system. Perhaps a person who gets the aid of charity benefits more than one who gets welfare, but does the average person?
"are less economically efficient"
This is likely to be true simply because government tends to be inefficient, but
can be worth it for the above reasons and can be assessed objectively. I'd be fine with spending some margin more than should be spent, say 50%, if it means that 95% rather than 10% of people have access to food or housing or whatever else.
Overall, I don't see how charity can even serve as a mechanism for what we're talking about. If we see unprecedented unemployment due to AI, how exactly do we expect voluntary charity to expand to meet demand? What can we do other than some form of wealth redistribution if we don't want lots of people to starve? Furthermore, why can't we do both? If charity will expand to meet demand, then let's use social welfare to fill in the gaps and prevent destitution.
Overall I think we just fundamentally disagree about government's role as well as for what to optimize: individual or society.
> I like this idea because I like liberty, and a rich person loses almost no agency by having some portion of their income or wealth taxed while a small stipend can make a huge difference in the choices available to a poor person.
I also like liberty, but to me the opposite of liberty is achieved when you redistribute for non public goods. Although you may have elevated the poorest, you've dampened the richests' purchasing power, however marginal. It is not pareto optimal, and to me the atomic unit is the individual and not the collective society.
> Do you have any evidentiary basis for the counter? Why would the system of voluntary charity suddenly improve its outcomes or have more money to spend?
"Crowd-out was small as a share of total New Deal spending (3%), but large as a share of church spending: our estimates suggest that church spending fell by 30% in response to the New Deal, and that government relief spending can explain virtually all of the decline in charitable church activity observed between 1933 and 1939."
This is an interesting problem due to its nature: good evidence can really only be collected once policies are in effect. Regression discontinuities around the New Deal are likely good candidates to study. The above paper estimates a 30% drop in religious charitable giving. I didn't look to see if they are able to discern whether this is due to the perception that the poor now get money from the gov so don't need extra or whether the income tax cut disposable income and thusly the charitable contribution budget.
Another instance is the Texas Seed Bill, where Grover Cleveland vetoed the disaster relief bill after finding no power enumerated to the federal government to provide aid. Private donations exceeded the Congressionally approved sum (or so I've heard but cannot find a source atm).
The logical basis is the following: by taxing someone you remove their purchasing power and thus naturally cut their ability to provide charitable contributions. Keep in mind the level of welfare we are already providing far exceeds what the wealthiest provide in their 50%+ tax rates. A lot of burden comes from "well to do but vunerable to economic shocks" folk, for which taxation rates have material impacts.
> If social welfare causes a significant change in the average person's risk tolerance, a claim that definitely requires substantiation, then I still might argue this isn't a net negative for the economy or society at large.
This is exactly why I mention moral hazard. We have to ask ourselves what the unintended consequences or the policies are, and how they may be abused.
Risk tolerance shifts due to free money will broadly impact the economy: you will necessarily increase demand as those with jobs suddenly find the opportunity cost of not working preferable. So you either end up with more unemployment or needing to tax at higher rates to meet the new demand for welfare. This might lead to increased economic output from the poorest but also may lead to less output from the richest. One thing is certain: risk is adjusted due to government subsidiaries/theft.
> Perhaps a person who gets the aid of charity benefits more than one who gets welfare, but does the average person?
How will you measure this? Are you quantifying strictly by the total dollars received by the needy? What if you flipped the script and asked whether the outcome is congruent to the expectations of the givers? E.g., are those dollars given charitably providing a better outcome for the givers than through dollars given by the charitable via taxation?
The benefit of the charitable approach is that there can be conditionals. "Do drugs and the money stops" kind of stuff. Society tends to think that is immoral for the government to do, but arguably the outcomes for the needy would be better if conditions were allowed. Charity also has the added benefit of being able to flow to local needs vs flow from the top down.
> If we see unprecedented unemployment due to AI, how exactly do we expect voluntary charity to expand to meet demand?
What is AI doing that will completely eridicate humans? I struggle to understand. Let's say you're displaced from programming. Could you become a farmer? Would machines undercut your price? Probably. But what if you're good at metal work and Joe is good at farming, and both of you have lost your jobs to AI? Maybe you decide to consume from only human, non AI based businesses. Suddenly, costs aside, people create an underlying economic network of non AI businesses and start to thrive again. This is essentially what we see with people trying to buy only from [insert preferences here] businesses.
I don't think AI is the scare people make it out to be. Ultimately, it will be a fun thing to play out so long as regulation is minimized.
We're both saying "the current system is bad because the way it works will interact with ai to create negative outcomes" and you're saying "wow you're very stupid, here's how the system works." We're aware friend, that's the problem.
It's not really stolen when nobody is deprived of it by the act, digital content is infinitely duplicable, but sure whatever. If it's stealing I'm perfectly alright with being a thief. I'm also perfectly alright with other people "stealing" my work (I'm a musician). I think the free proliferation of art is a better ethos than the garbage system we have now. IP just lets corporations gather up all the valuable stuff and toss the artists some crumbs for their work. Artists were still starving well before internet piracy. I think we need a model of fans crowdfunding their favorite artists, which could work if it became more common. Artists could, for example, set a donation goal after which they'd release a new album. It would be a large social transition but it's the only real way out. Since that's never going to happen legally, I want to see technology render the law meaningless, hence why I like piracy.
