> would all be using the same AI model

i think this is a very large assumption.

What if in the future, AI models are as guarded as nuclear weapons? Because why doesn't this argument apply for nuclear weapons, but does for AI?

Because AI models can create other ones and the weights/training data is what models. So you can hoard data, but not the models.

UBI only works if the technology advances to a level where there is zero scarcity. I dont believe AI will produce that level of abundance.

There is no reason to have UBI if there is zero scarcity. There is no reason to have money at all without scarcity.

UBI is a system for dividing up scarce resources.

So you as a privacy-desiring car buyer could offer 2 or 3 times more than 60cents to the car OEM. Or, even 10x more. The monetization of that data by the third party surely cannot be 10x their cost - that would be an enormous margin that seem unrealistic. But increasing the price of the car by $6 is almost a rounding error to the car price.

Plus, if you were allowed to opt-out, the rest of the opt-in data from other people become _slightly_ less useful.

Therefore, all the gov't needs to do is to mandate that car manufacturers offer the option at a reasonable price (where the 10x price is considered reasonable).

if the content is sufficiently good, why does it matter that it is ai or not?

It matters because of the inability to measure up front whether the content is sufficiently good. AI's best skill is making something look right and look good when it is, in fact, not right. It does this all the time, as opposed to human-made things, which are like that only for specific attempts at deception.

I see it as previously content could be categorized as:

  - Clearly amateurish production, which should be met with skepticism until proven otherwise
  - Clearly professional production, with good reputation (e.g. long-running with few controversies), meaning it’s probably trustworthy
  - Clearly professional, with poor reputation (e.g. propaganda funding), meaning one should be skeptical while consuming

But now the bar for “appearing professional” has changed, and it’s not as easy to differentiate between trustworthy and untrustworthy new sources.

I'm starting to suspect a lot of the people saying things like this have a plan to get rich from AI content farming.

It's really not hard to understand what the problem is with AI generated history vids.

For pure entertainment maybe, but in the case of a history video how do you know whether the history you're being presented is accurate, or even has any basis in reality for that matter?

I honestly think your questions has more profound implications than other responders seem to appreciate.

I think a correlating answer can be found in visual effects for movies. And the answer "depends". When it's poorly done, the scene feels off or unbelievable somehow. But when done well, people have an enjoyable experience.

This same conversation existed when moving from practical effects to digital. and in the end, audiences only cared about quality.

> Is this good?

it is good if the losers are voluntarily participating. They are not coerced (stupidity is not coercion) into it, and therefore, it is reasonable that they expected to win the bet.

The only problem i have with polymarket (and others like it) are that insiders can often remain anonymous. It should not, and if an insider earns, but their win requires they remain anonymous or face some social/reputational repercussions, then that should happen.

Therefore, as long as KYC is enforced for these markets, i would have zero issues with their existence.

In most modern societies, we regulate all sorts of things that people would otherwise willingly do to their own detriment. We ban drugs; we have labor laws; we have usury laws; we require seatbelts; we have securities regulations; etc. (Notably, until very recently, this included most forms of gambling.)

So the mere fact that losers are voluntary does not, IMO, make the situation good.

all of those things you mentioned have damages sustained on third parties that did not have consent. And tbh, my opinion is that the banning of drugs have done more harm than not banning it (but instead, allow it to be sold safely and cheaply).

Gambling to me, is like that. Banning it doesn't stop it, and it has barely any harm other than to the person who over-indulge. Regulating it is a good idea - where regulating means there's oversight on cheating, on the platform's governance etc.

> all of those things you mentioned have damages sustained on third parties that did not have consent.

The family that suddenly finds themselves homeless because one parent decided to go deep into debt to fuel their gambling addiction sure seems to have "damages sustained on third parties that did not have consent."

Nope, nope, nope.

Gambling addiction has impacts beyond the person gambling, because we live in a society. They might gamble away their kid's college fund, lose their house, or resort to stealing money from family members. When they take out loans that they default on, it impacts the balls and raises costs for everyone else.

All of these are very similar to secondary and societal effects of hard drug addiction. It should at the very least be regulated. And most being is worthless from an information standpoint, so isn't providing any societal upside - a man doesn't hurt us. The world was strictly better before we had rampant gambling everywhere.

> They are not coerced (stupidity is not coercion) into it

They are coerced in the same way as any other gambling: the false allure of easy money in a society built on financial struggle.

Are they voluntarily participating if they’re being lied to about what they’re participating in? What distinguishes the whole thing from fraud?

as an example, complex numbers were from the abstract thinking of centuries ago, on which the modern physics derive much value from.

> I fully believe labor needs as much leverage against capital as possible for the scales to be balanced at all

Competition is required, rather than unionization. If an industry is dominated by monopolies, not only do customers suffer, workers do too. Unions don't really fix the problem - only make certain groups win over others.

For once, the union is one of the rare in-groups that are very easy to join and actually benefit their members

The problem is that they tend to benefit their members in a zero sum way. For example the LIRR wants a double digit raise not in exchange for hitting targets on on-time arrivals or some other metric. They want it or they strike and hold the community hostage. It bothers me that there's no value exchange it's just take take take, and ultimately at my expense.

Double digit raise in this economy and for the economic strata that does this work and is more exposed to prices more than some others, double digit sounds reasonable. The union just wants their members to not be piss poor. Is this bad?

They earn $220k a year for jobs that aren't worth that. Income equals expenditure; they are one and the same. So the $220k comes from someone else, and those people aren't getting value for money, they're being robbed and stolen from by a greedy union that doesn't know when to stop biting the hand that feeds. It's pretty disgusting.

Worse, public sector unions are ultimately at my expense in a way that I can't even fix by not buying the product, since they're taking it from my taxes.

>that are very easy to join

That's the case for most service-sector unions, but a lot (certainly not all) of builder's unions seem to meter the amount of people that are allowed to join, making it prohibitively difficult to actually get into the union.

Now that sounds like a guild and illegal as fuck, but what do I know

equality of outcome is unnecessary, only equality of opportunity is required.

So if the apples are in a 3.5m high tree and you're 2m tall and I'm 1.5m tall, it's fair if we both get 1m ladders?

why isnt it fair?

Someone taller has a better chance at becoming a pro basketball player. Shorter people are not given more leeway. But both tall and short people have the chance to try out (at least on paper).

Because the equivalence between being signed for the NBA and having apples to eat is nonsensical. We accept some things being unfair, not everything being unfair.

Fixating on apples is key to the metaphor. The shorter person has other opportunities to collect food that they are better suited for, e.g. picking strawberries.

> We accept some things being unfair, not everything being unfair.

Life is fundamentally unfair. Anything that tips the balance in the other direction is due to specific, continuous human effort. It's a good thing when we can make things more fair, but the inherent unfairness of life is not a cosmic injustice.

Strawman.... No one is dying for lack of apples in America

Yes? Maybe the 1.5 m tall guy should find another line of work where he has a natural advantage that could be turned into profit. People are not the same. The market is the best way to allocate resources fairly to people of different ability

Unfettered markets are how we get burning rivers.

I know we're on the bastion of libertarianism, but even though I work in tech, I don't feel that tech (hardware/software) is tackling the truly big problems of humanity, just the ones that bring the most money. We should at least acknowledge that and mitigate it.

Tech and the market are orthogonal issues.

Burning rivers? No failure to protect the environment is a failure of property rights enforcement. If your stuff is leaking off your property you should be forced to pay for it. That's just basic property rights. You don't have the right to put your stuff on others property

Exactly! The "unfettered" free market examples are all externalities, which is unfortunately unavoidable. Therefore, the role of gov't is to remove by regulation and force, all externalities (and the best way, perhaps, is to fine/charge/tax those externalities such that the effect becomes neutralized).

This would work for carbon emissions, as an example.

Turns out, some people are taller and if we don't aim for equality of outcomes, they eat all the apples and shit on our short head.

Every HN poster should be forced to read the chapters in the Black Swan where Taleb describes Extremistan and Mediocristan.

With scalable tech almost everything becomes winners take most. Equality of opportunity leads to many people starving.

The shorter person should pick root vegetables where they have an advantage over the tall person. Not all people are equally suited for all tasks