Posts

What you really mean when you claim to support “UBI for job automation”: Part 1 2024-05-13T08:52:08.683Z
AI and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, & Nuclear Hazards: A Regulatory Review 2024-05-10T08:41:51.051Z
Reviewing the Structure of Current AI Regulations 2024-05-07T12:34:17.820Z
Open-Source AI: A Regulatory Review 2024-04-29T10:10:55.779Z
Cybersecurity of Frontier AI Models: A Regulatory Review 2024-04-25T14:51:20.272Z
Report: Evaluating an AI Chip Registration Policy 2024-04-12T04:39:45.671Z
AI Discrimination Requirements: A Regulatory Review 2024-04-04T15:43:58.008Z
AI Disclosures: A Regulatory Review 2024-03-29T11:42:10.754Z
AI Model Registries: A Regulatory Review 2024-03-22T16:04:15.295Z
AI Safety Evaluations: A Regulatory Review 2024-03-19T15:05:23.769Z
AI Incident Reporting: A Regulatory Review 2024-03-11T21:03:02.036Z
Announcing Convergence Analysis: An Institute for AI Scenario & Governance Research 2024-03-07T21:37:00.526Z

Comments

Comment by Deric Cheng (deric-cheng) on What you really mean when you claim to support “UBI for job automation”: Part 1 · 2024-05-13T16:10:04.789Z · LW · GW

Totally agree on the UBI being equivalent to a negative income tax in many ways! My main argument here is that UBI is a non-realistic policy when you actually practically implementing it, whereas NIT is the same general outcome but significantly more realistic. If you use the phrase UBI as the "high-level vision" and actually mean "implement it as a NIT" in terms of policy, I can get behind that.

Re: the simplicity idea, repeating what I left in a comment above: 

Personally, I really don't get the "easy to maintain" argument for UBI, esp. given my analysis above. You'd rather have a program that costs $4 trillion with zero maintenance costs, than a similarly impactful program that costs $~650 billion with maintenance costs? It's kind of a reductive argument that only makes sense when you don't look at the actual numbers behind implementing a policy idea.

Comment by Deric Cheng (deric-cheng) on What you really mean when you claim to support “UBI for job automation”: Part 1 · 2024-05-13T16:05:05.410Z · LW · GW

Re: "UBI in the context of automation", that's a great point and I can definitely see what you're getting at! The answer is that this is part 1 of a 2-part series - Part 1 is how to implement UBI realistically and Part 2 is how to pay for it. Paying for it is an equally or even more interesting problem. 

Re: penalizing productivity, it's pretty unclear from the research whether NIT actually reduces employment (the main side effect of penalizing productivity). Of course theoretically it should, but the data isn't really conclusive in either direction. Bunch of links above.

A modified EITC wouldn't have pressure to dismantle the current welfare system because it's a LOT cheaper than 40% of the US budget.  Adding a pure UBI on top of the existing welfare systems would make redistribution like 70-80% of the US budget, which is a pretty dicey political stance.

Personally, I really don't get the "easy to maintain" argument for UBI, esp. given my analysis above. You'd rather have a program that costs $4 trillion with zero maintenance costs, than a similarly impactful program that costs $~650 billion with maintenance costs? It's kind of a reductive argument that only makes sense when you don't look at the actual numbers behind implementing a policy idea.