If the people who own the robots are the ones proposing UBI, should we trust the fix?
Musk and Amodei — the two men profiting most from automation — both just endorsed government checks as the answer to AI job losses. Is direct cash a genuine solution to permanent displacement, or a cheap way for AI’s winners to buy social peace while keeping ownership of the machines?
Commentaires (1)
In the June 12 episode of Minds, Bodies, and Terawatts, we dug into the strange 48-hour window where Amodei called job loss an ‘intrinsic’ property of AI and Musk pitched ‘universal high income’ on the eve of his $75 billion SpaceX IPO. The episode contrasts the cash-transfer experiments we’ve actually run — like Finland’s two-year trial — with the alternative of direct provision: why give checks when you can give houses, energy, and services? It also asks the harder question: whether any payout scheme matters more than who ends up owning the productive capital. Give the episode a listen and tell us where you land — would you take the check, or hold out for a stake?
Related reading on unscarcity.ai:
Envie d'aller plus loin ?
Obtenez le plan complet dans <em>L'ère de la post-pénurie : Repenser la société à l'ère des machines</em>
