Name: Why you are wrong about Universal Basic Income | The power of AI within the hands of the few
Uploaded: 2018-09-05T14:35:08.000Z
Duration: 29 min 5 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Adverbs of degree

The amount of common euphoria and uncritical
reception of an idea so big as universal basic

income makes me question how many people realize
nothing good exists without condition.

Basic passive voice

Somehow we are supposed to trust huge corporations
whose sole intention has always been consolidation

of wealth and economic power to the point
nothing and nobody can question their dominance.

Corporations that track our every movement,
follow our credit cards and cellphone IDs

everywhere we go in order to have a perfect
track record of our personality traits and thoughts.

Corporations that in order to bring greater
profit for their shareholders, exploit child

labor in undemocratic countries or failed
states, just so that they don't have to

employ expensive labor in Western societies.

Corporations that aren't shy for being in
bed with ones of the worst authoritarian regimes

Corporations that actively pursue monopolies
so that they have the power to influence social

discourse and our behavior, by manipulating
what we can see, censoring what we can say,

Corporations that lobby and bribe our politicians
by dumping hundreds of millions of dollars

every year in order to rig our democratic
process and maintain their unquestionable presence.

Somehow we are supposed to expect that these
corporations who have never cared about the

values and needs of the society, who have
securely corrupted our democracy, and know

more about us than we know about ourselves,
will give us all free income without any conditions.

Politicians left and right, corporate leaders,
and people from all backgrounds seem to unite

behind an idea that could've easily worked
if we implemented it hundred years ago, when

I am not here to question whether universal
basic income

would successfully elevate people out of poverty.

I am not here to question whether this form
of guaranteed income

I agree that universal basic income could
successfully achieve both of those things.

I am here to express my skepticism towards
the new system and power relationships we

are going to build when we implement universal
basic income

in combination with centralized automation.

I am just pointing out that we should be careful
about what kind of world we are building under

the premise of hopeful dreams and good intentions.

The debate about universal basic income is
essentially a debate about whether this time

technological revolution is going to be any
different than the previous ones.

And I am on the side that argues this time
is going to be different.

Artificial intelligence is going to destroy
the need for human labor.

Elon Musk best summarizes this line of thinking:

Robots are going to be better than us in everything.

Including manipulation, censorship, and propaganda.

It's not just that the robots are going
to be better.

It's about what social contract are we going
to implement around a system where robots

There may be a hypothetical time when robots
will be completely indistinguishable from humans.

But that time isn't going to be in our century
and thus shouldn't be a core issue of our debate.

Artificial intelligence isn't dangerous
because of what it can do, but because of

how people who created it are going to use
it.

Instead we should focus on how the development
and deployment of automation currently takes place.

And this is where at least in my reasoning,
the dream of universal basic income crumbles.

My argument is that universal basic income is not going to create a better world.

It might create a wathere is less poverty and starvation.

But because people will no longer be needed in production,

they will lose all of their power as workers to secure their rights and position

in the social contract with their economic and political elites.

Protesting and striking will lose all its value because corporations and politicians

won't be reliant on human labor to prosper and grow their power.

And that is going to happen if we don't change anything in the current trends of

centralization of power and consolidation of wealth.

So when Musk implies that because robots will
be able to replace humans:

The emphasis should be on the word “choice”.

I think Elon didn't pick this word by a
stuttering accident.

It might actually be one of his premonitions.

Why exactly are we not going to have a choice?

Isn't free market supposed to decide what
people actually want in the so called 'law

No business would want to create products
in a system where they can't sell them because

their customers can't generate income anymore.

So is Elon Musk hinting that decisions of
a handful of corporations will override the

I think this is what makes all the difference
between technological revolution of today

And that is precisely because human societies
have never faced entities consolidating so

much power as the biggest transnational corporations
are doing today.

The argument isn't that we shouldn't implement
any form of a guaranteed income.

But that we should do it on our own terms
rather than having it shoved down our throats

by big corporations with pseudoliberal agendas
and politicians who only care about reelection.

Otherwise universal basic income is going
to constitute a new social contract which

When we look at this issue from a historical
perspective each technological revolution

completely changed the previous social order
and created new forms of government.

The next technological revolution triggered by artificial intelligence

will also result most likely in a complete
rearrangement of the social contract.

And as I will soon demonstrate, this process
has already started.

Before the first industrial revolution in
the 18th century, human relationships were

tightly locked to the land they were working
on.

Ownership of more land meant higher position
in the social hierarchy.

The highest rank belong to the king who owned
most of the land in the kingdom.

The lowest rank in the hierarchy was held
by the peasants, the majority of the population.

Most people that couldn't afford any land
were working on fields for landlords.

But even if those that could afford to own
a land usually didn't have enough means

Just getting a sword not to mention a horse
was usually extremely expensive.

Which is why these people usually formed pacts
with nobility and knights to protect them

When industrial revolution kicked off, it
completely dismantled the previous feudal system.

Mere possession of land was no longer a requirement
for sustainable life.