This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I notice I am confused by your premise.
First of all I think it's a simplification.
Are these the two sides? I wouldn't agree. I think you're bunching together a lot of disparate groups. I think the main group you are trying to describe are those who believe a high level of structural, technologically driven unemployment is coming and propose UBI as a way to prevent huge numbers from falling into poverty or rioting.
But when you see arguments in favour of UBI, plenty are more prosaic, liking it from a Friedmanite perspective as the most effective method of welfare.
Between the technological UBI and libertarian UBI enthusiasts lies the most populous group: the midwits. The standard reddit proponent, they are aware of some of the technological arguments, and some of the efficiency arguments, and are smart enough to know that communism is a dead end. Thus they attach to UBI as a way to sound smart while still pushing the type of left wing welfare they favour.
When you talk about left vs right, I think you are mostly seeing arguments from the latter group, and are ending up with a bunch of weakmen. Hence why you are arguing against "affordability", because you're seeing people whose proposals begin and end at confiscating all the money from billionaires worldwide. The reality is that there are costed UBI proposals, both for current welfare or post-AGI welfare.
but let's ignore all that. My second point of confusion is how you imagine this post-AGI economy at all. I'm assuming that we're putting ASI to the side, whether through slow-takeoff or because you believe it impossible, so AI that hits human level but no higher. Is this AI purely limited to the realms of current LLMs? Are you assuming no equivalent leaps in robotic technology? How long do you expect this period to last? What's the actual level of unemployment you are expecting?
I'm trying to imagine something like self-driving cars, level 5 with no requirement for human supervision. So you reduce the work week to a 30/20/10 hour max or whatever. Does it matter if no one ever needs a human driver again?
Is the assumption that AGI largely acts a super performance enhancer but generically, so that every current job can still be done by humans?
I'm not saying that this is an impossible scenario or we couldn't at least theorycraft some way that it works, but it seems like it needs a very specific set of future developments to make sense.
And this for me is the biggest reason why few people talk about work weeks and instead focus on UBI: it's simple.
Whether you have AGI LLMs, or robotics, or ASI; whether you have 25% unemployment, or 50%, or 100%, or even if it's all a big luddite fallacy and there are loads more jobs created, UBI still works as a method of welfare. You don't have to know the future path of the economy or technology to put forward a solution.
More options
Context Copy link