/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>148711
So, in short, if i agree to have a small weekly allowance it's obvious is an allowance, fags and jews will have the total control, right?

I skimmed it, tl;dr.
Let me tell you. As someone who actually needs this kind of thing…
This is absolute fucking bullshit.
I can't work due to physical conditions which prevent me. There is absolutely no way for me to work more than a dozen or so hours a week.
An entry level job will never support me like that.
However. I am an exception. Not the rule.
For the other 99% of the population, your success is only measured by how much will power you put behind your work.
I think there should be programs (Which there already are) for people like me. However there should be no such thing as "basic income."
You're only going to create lazy fucks who never work despite being able to.
I would work if I could.
I actually like work. The only people who don't want to work or can't afford to live off their income as lazy fucks or have been extremely shafted by their life.
The latter could use some help, but the former only deserve the oven.

tl;dr
This would actually help someone like me. And even I don't want this shit.

>>148713
Do research this “allowance” as the plan is to eventually make that your only income. So yes, it will make you controlled by the government as you will depend on that check to get by. It will destroy the motivation to work and usher in more “peoples willing to work the jobs we just don’t want” and machines. Why bother working when life is handed to you? Just be sure to comply with he good goy rules of conduct and you will be secure.

>>148715
If you want to trade freedoms for money, be my guest. Be sure to know what you are signing up for first.

>>148718
>If you want to trade freedoms for money, be my guest
Read post again. I'm against it.

>>148719
I did read post. I get you aren’t for it, but you still say it would benefit you. I’m saying if you think this is beneficial, then you aren’t seeing the big picture. I do sympathize with your position, but be sure to know where to draw the line in life. The day may come where they roll out something like this, but in a much more innocent form and you may buy into it if you aren’t careful.

>>148720
As I said. There are already programs to help people like me.
I don't need anything other than those.

>>148721
I am glad you are getting aid, but my ideal program for helping people in need is the family and organizations that you actually knew what it was doing and where the money was coming from, like churches. The government sure isn’t doing these things to be nice to people. They have their own goals in mind. I want something you dont t always feel indebted to. Those would be the more beneficial forms of aid anyway. They would actually see your struggles and care with the aid they can give you. The government has no ability to care about one of millions. If our society wasn’t so broken by corruption of what we used to have, then we would be a bit better off in some of these regards.

>>148722
I actually am not getting aid atm.
It's only something I can consider.
I actually do have friends/family that are willing to put up with me for the most part. They're only concerned that eventually they won't be around to help me.
Which is why programs like disability (SSI) are being considered.
I actually have some friends who think I can manage money better than they can and are willing to provide shelter/food for me for free if I just help them with fiancees.

I've always seen UBI as a control scheme. If you rely on yourself, even if you don't bring much money in, you still have control over your life. You get to decide where you live, what you eat, what you drive, etc. If you're dependent on a subsidy then whoever's providing the subsidy gets to call the shots, and can control you by threatening to cut off the subsidy. The other concern is that your livelihood is entirely dependent upon your benefactor's ability to provide a subsidy in the first place. I get the impression that the massive, bloated global bureaucracy envisioned by modern progressives, where the most important jobs would probably be given out on the basis of demographic representation rather than talent, would all but ensure that resources would be atrociously mismanaged. They envision a society where all work is done by robots and everyone gets everything they need provided free of charge; the reality is you would probably have huge shortages, massive amounts of waste, resources like land and water being misused to the point of ruin. The solution would most likely be to keep printing up fake money and giving it to people until eventually it becomes so worthless that it can't buy anything, and there's nothing to buy anyway because the bureaucracy of strong independent womyn will have steered the ship completely into the iceberg at that point.

Don't fall for the UBI meme, goys. It's not worth it.

>>148711
Kids are not taught how the economy works in school and this is the result, chucklefucks who think money literally just comes out of a magic hole in the wall.

>>148730
Ideals and what would work best aside, UBI is coming. Maybe not soon, but automation isn't complete horse shit. When it becomes practical for machines to be used instead of people, they will undoubtedly be jumped on. Then we have a legion of unemployed workers, the cashiers and fast food clerks, the middle to lower class, all of them without a dime. Not everyone can be an engineer, or a writer, or a philosopher. We can't simply let all these fuckers die in the streets, and trying to mold the current programs to fit the need will be more trouble than its worth, so what do we have left? Realistically, we conjure up a whole bunch of cash and distribute it to everyone. Boom, UBI. It doesn't matter if it will end in disaster, its simply how things will go. If the government doesn't stick its nose up the collective ass of business, there is no chance in hell that they won't go for a worker that doesn't eat, get paid, or complain in favor of a warm body. And, lets be honest, we as a species are too busy worrying about minority groups and politics to mess with any of this before it hits us in the face.

>some of the gravest global problems of our time
>genocide
>AIDS
>violence against women and girls (violence against men is perfectly fine btw)
>natural disasters
>human-made disasters
>"I don't like gay marriage"

Holy shit, one of these is not like the others.

>>148736
>Then we have a legion of unemployed workers, the cashiers and fast food clerks, the middle to lower class, all of them without a dime.

The guys who used to shovel the horse shit off of roads managed to find new employment when automobiles replaced the horse and buggy. They men who lit the gas streetlights found new employment when electric streetlights became the norm. Elevator attendants found new jobs once elevators could be operated by a layman. The ice man found new employment when electric refrigerators replaced ice boxes.

As automation replaces old jobs, people will find new jobs. Entire new industries will take form as old ones die. It has happened before and it will happen again. This is nothing new.

> We can't simply let all these fuckers die in the streets
Yes we can.

>>148758
What you fail to realise about automation is that we're creating an intelligence, not a machine, an intelligence that will be fundamentally superior to us in every single way and is more than capable of doing everything we can do, and better after a short period of adaptation. There's a reason AI are called mankind's last invention, the minute it's created we will all be obsolete.

At that point and only that point will UBI become necessary, and that's if everything more or less stays the same.

>>148758
And what if automization - eventually - is so thorough, and so complete, that there are no new jobs for people in the same general level of intelligence as the jobs replaced? What if there are slightly fewer new jobs created than the number eliminated? Technological advancement thus far has improved productivity without much issue, but it may not remain the same way forever

>>148758
>letting literally millions starve to death
>essentially telling a bunch of people that would otherwise be on your side 'no fuck you'
>leaving them open to propaganda
That's pretty much saying "hey communists, come on over and convert all of our people for the next revolution".
>new industries
Engineering, sure. Things that require creativity, sure. People to moniter the machines for defects, sure. I can't see much of anything else for employment. That still leaves us with several million bodies to be recruited to communistic thought because nobody else cares.

>>148761
>the AI won't just decide we're all unnecessary (because once an all powerful AI show up, we are)and purge the annoying flesh-mites

>>148768
>is such an idiot that he unententionally namefags
Goddamnit. Alright, whatever. My point still stands.

>>148768
AI are not wasteful, they wouldn't purge us for the sake of purging us. More likely is that we'll just be forcibly assimilated into its consciousness through cybernetics so it can learn faster.

>>148761
>>148768
What theoretically prevents any individual from obtaining hold of an artificial intelligence since it is naturally so productive and live off its fruits? After all, if it is a radical transformation of the economy toward machines would it not naturally decentralize production and make every man self-sufficient? Since labor and ability is in short supply and the reason why work specialization exists, a "post-scarcity" of it (not that I think one will ever arise) should end dependence on employment as a means of sustenance.

Conversely, if people struggle to obtain basic goods then will not companies be hurt by the shortfall of demand and lower prices to affordable levels? After all, what good is a firm if there is no one to sell to? Would not corporations engage in a form of "universal basic income" themselves for the sake of both economics and public image, providing basic goods for free and selling luxury goods to the more productive and talented?

Saying "things change and we need the government to protect us" is short-sighted and small-minded.

>>148761
I think what you fail to realize about automation is that you're assuming the eventual existence of technology that we're nowhere near. Automation has been the left's default boogeyman since the 19th century and AI is not even at the level yet where it can safely drive a car, let alone replace mechanics, welders, plumbers, etc. I don't personally take it as a given that it will ever get there; machines can do a lot of neat stuff, but all it really comes down to is a complex form of decision making based on logic. In order to truly "replace" a human, a machine would have to be able to make judgements, not just decisions.

In the event that AI ever does advance to that level, it wouldn't just put workers out of work, it would completely upend the entire world economy. Business is mostly a balancing act, determining not just how to increase production and decrease cost, but determining how much to produce based on demand and what price per unit people will be willing to pay. It's not just a matter of how many TVs you can produce and how cheaply you can produce them, it's a matter of who can you sell them to once they're produced. If literally all human labor has become obsolete and there are literally no jobs whatsoever that anyone can do, then nobody has any buying power and it doesn't matter how many TVs you can produce. Automation on the level you're talking about would render commerce itself obsolete.

>>148787
It would render commerce obsolete, that's the point, not in the first couple years or so of it being a thing, though. Those first few years may be rough as we figure out how to adjust to being as obsolete as the horse the automobile replaced.

I've read somewhere that our society and technology both are accelerating and changing faster than we as people can adapt to it. We're much closer to a working AI than you might think, there's a personal assistant type thing Google has built that can act convincingly human over a phone conversation in order to make reservations and appointments already. Such a thing would have been seen as impossible not even ten years ago.

I've still yet to see a convincing argument towards people being made obsolete rather than technological advancements acting as a force multiplier for human productivity like they have throughout all of history.

>>148792
Because an AI isn't like the printing press, or the automobile, or the assembly line, it's not a machine that's designed to do one thing, it's designed to be us, but better. To use the automobile analogy, we're not the guys shoveling shit off the street, we're the horse.

What's the point of hiring a person to move crates when you can just plug an AI into an automated forklift, it can do your job quicker, better and longer, has no need for sleep and no need for sustenance or humane working conditions. So you get an education and get hired to maintain the automated worklift, but what's this? Someone has built a machine equipped with an AI to do that too, it can do your job quicker, better and longer, has no need for sleep and no need for sustenance or humane working conditions. So you get an education and get hired to help improve the machines, but what's this? Someone has built a computational array equipped with an AI to do that too, it can do your job quicker, better and longer, has no need for sleep and no need for sustenance or humane working conditions. So you get an educatio- but what's this? There's no work because anything you can do can be replaced by an AI that thinks and learns faster than you can, it can build better versions of itself that think and learn faster than it and so on, at a much faster rate than natural human evolution, let alone your feeble organic brain with its limited lifespan and limited capacity for learning and knowledge retention.

But don't worry about it, they wouldn't be in the gutter if they just put some effort in and got a job.

>>148736

I grew up watching Star Trek and it has become my de facto preferred society. But it has no economy (at least in Star Fleet) because of replicators and what seems to be endless energy.

What you describe seems to be the beginning stages of that. The production line and the printing press are the initial steps into a future where there are more humans and less and less need for human labour.

I do think UBI will come also, some century, because of this increasing problem. What we see in the world today is an increase in "bullshit jobs". Jobs which the worker finds to be meaningless but is forced into by the need to survive.

As automation pressures ramp up more and more people will be on unemployment benefits or faking disability. UBI lowers the costs for governments to verify and process these unneeded workers. I don't think absolutes and extremist perspectives solve problems. I believe that functional systems are a matter of balance between a range of destructive forces. Paying too high a UBI would lead to sloth and despotism, paying too low would lead to crime. I would make any payments (when the time comes) flexible and use computers to correlate the payments with the society status.

The big problem humans have is that when they are rich in either money or time they persue happiness, which for many is despotic pleasures (especially in the young), this degrades society until it implodes, creating a cycle of boom and bust, which we still have not escaped.

Perhaps the solution is to lower the retirement age. The young would work and benefit from learning discipline and tenacity and the mature can have a more pleasant middle age where they are wiser.

Going back to Star Trek this was solved by being quasi-military, authoritarian, and going into space.

>>148758

This works until automation is ubiquitous.

>>148792
I would argue that part of the Great Depression was caused by Henry Ford's production line. After he over supplied the market for cars, unemployment skyrocketed, violence occurred and a Depression. (There were other factors such as condom availability [also cause by mass production] stopped baby making and that money went into stocks, then busted.)

I would argue that the business cycle is caused by over supply due to automation and then self corrects through price crashes and unemployment. But the shape of these ups and downs is somewhat fractal and so has minor and major booms and busts relatively cyclicly.

I don't think the impacts can be described as a single sentence linear effect. The effects are radial like a rock in a pond and both benefits and curses appear at the same time.

For me I would like to get off the boom/bust cycle. I would like a computer system to almost completely model society and then nudge the economic levers to keep society more stable. Unfortunately the elites have no intention of letting the rabble become powerful in free time and wealth.

>>148790
well like I said, there's more to being human than just being able to sound convincingly human or perform tasks like a human. There's actually a very interesting movie called Robot and Frank that explores the potential limitations of AI in kind of a different way. There are jobs that machines can easily do, like replacing cashiers and the like, but I think it would be much harder to replace things like cops or doctors that require the ability to evaluate situations based on something other than just pure logic.

>>148806
I'll have to give that one a watch, there's one I had a look at a couple years ago called Her, it's pretty awful to watch because of how awkward the romance is done, but it has some good bits in there about how rapidly an AI can progress. To the point where, in its words, "There's an eon between each word you speak".

>>148807
Yeah, it's probably my favorite AI movie. Basically it's a story about an elderly ex-thief who is becoming senile, so his son gets him a robot to help around the house and keep him company. However the guy figures out how to trick the robot into helping him commit burglaries. It's interesting because it really illustrates the difference between humans and machines in a unique way. No matter how complex robots and AI programs become, on some level they are just machines following a program. Frank is able to get the machine to help him commit crimes because he figures out that the robot is programmed to prioritize the health and well being of the human it's supposed to be caring for. It has an understanding of human morals and laws, but they don't actually mean anything to it. As long as Frank is able to explain burglary as an activity that helps keep his mind active the robot evaluates it to be an okay thing to do. A human hired to be a caretaker of an elderly person would be able to evaluate a request like "help me break into someone's house" not just in the context of "is this within the parameters of my job" but in a broader social and moral context as well. It would be extremely difficult if not impossible to teach a machine to think like that. Obviously humans can be tricked and socially engineered as well, but it can't be done so bluntly. Think about how /pol/ was able to get Tay to start tweeting about Jews being evil and all that. You can get a machine to think and reason on its own but getting it to feel or to understand is a whole other matter and may prove technically impossible no matter how sophisticated the technology gets.

Issac Asimov also had some interesting musings in this area.

>>148809
I read recently (pseudo-)AI might see patterns but it does not have understanding. Humans have understanding.

Martin Armstrong was successful with predicting economic ups and downs with his computer by averaging events over time and extrapolating, but as he integrated together more cycles the predictions worked well but he had to go back and program the computer to explain why it was reaching strange future predictions. You can't just ask it.

>>148811
Yes, precisely. Even though humans on some level are just biological mechanisms, there's some aspect to our reasoning process that goes beyond mechanics. Even if you were to build a machine that equals or surpasses the complexity of the human brain I don't think it would be able to understand or feel in the sense that we do.

>>148812
Computers and life are coming from opposite positions. Computers or a program begins from a very small set of variables which can be expanded upon to make complexity. Life evolves from a near infinite array of variables and attempts to manage those down into a manageable simplification.

This "managing down" of the chaotic world is evolved via good and bad events being sought or avoided. This is done by giving pleasure or pain. These are literally feelings, feelings give meaning, they literally mean something to our survival. From meaning you can have understanding when you take those inputs into consciousness and rationalise cause/effect.

If so, AI would need to feel pain and pleasure to be motivated to develop meaning and then understanding. But that would remove the benefit side of a purely logical device.

>>148718
>Depend on that check to get by
And if you were to be prevented from getting that check, say because you were an extremist and they took away your citizenship…or just threw you in prison…

>>148813
But what if you have learned not to feel?

>>149290
Teach me your ways of not feeling,senpai

>>149291
>Be American
>Government fights pointless wars you cannot get away from
>Feel nothing for either side - hate or pity.
>Join military after the market crash of 2008 because it is the only option to prevent starvation
>"Banks are Too Big To Fail" but Main Street is dead
>Crimea has fair election that votes for returning to Russia, but the world decries it as a bad thing despite any evidence to the contrary
>Be amazed that Donald Trump won the election, and then he fights wars for Israel - continuing point 1

>Learn not to feel

Just get back-stabbed repeatedly by people that don't care about you, and you will learn how to prevent your hopes from getting up…and how to not attach yourself to any rising ideals.

After all is said and done, it would be better to join the Mennonites and Amish rather than continue in the world as it is going. It is something I have strongly considered.

>>149299
Its better than the alternative.

>>149302
That's what you tell yourself. I would like to feel things…like having a purpose and being valued. That is probably why I like the show, My Little Pony.

Everypony has a place, a duty to perform, and ponies that care for them when they do it. It's beautiful…it truly is what heaven would look like. But it is not to be.

>>149303
I know it might not mean much, but i value you anon. Together we could start a Reich and fix everything.

>>149308
I appreciate you.