← Artificial Intelligence Masterclass
Loading summary
Transcript4 lines
- [00:00]
A
Study and play come together on a Windows 11 PC. And for a limited time, college students get the best of both worlds. Get the unreal college deal. Everything you need to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft 365 Premium and a year of Xbox Game Pass ultimate with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn more@windows.com studentoffer while supplies last ends June 30th terms at aka mscollegepc.
- [00:30]
B
All right, there's your dog tax. All right. Hey everybody. So I wanted to talk about today, the techright when I'll define what I mean by that in just a second. But the techright is very against UBI and they're also under the impression that technology will always create new jobs. So first I'm going to define what I mean by techright. Then number two, I'm going to steel man their arguments. Basically portray their arguments as, as, as I understand them in good faith and then I'm going to offer my rebuttals. So let's get into it. So by tech, right, what I mean is like generally speaking, they're Silicon Valley types. They're either VCs or founders and they're generally pro maga, pro Trump, pro military, industrial complex. So they're like fans of Palantir and Anduril and that sort of thing. Some of the most famous ones are going to be Mark Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz, Beth Jesos, AKA Gil Verdun. And whatever your opinion of these guys is like, I think that they're decent enough humans. I've interacted with them a few times. So this is not like starting a B4. I don't want anyone to think like, yeah, like my team versus them and like get into flame wars in the comments or anything like that. Like we all have more or less the same goals, which is like peace and prosperity and that sort of thing. We can disagree over how to get there. So that's the tech right now, their arguments and this, this is going to be somewhat simplified because, you know, we have time constraints and that sort of thing. Also, it looks like my lens is foggy there. Hopefully you can see me better. Also look at, look at the dogs, the little billy goats. Anyways, and people asked last time, like why I don't let the dogs off leash and that's because we would never get them back. But they're happy to explore while, while on, on the lead. Anyways, sorry, getting distracted. So Gil Verdun, one of his primary arguments is that UBI is bad because it flattens incentive gradients, which is a very complex way of saying if you give people ubi, then there's not going to be any motivation or reason to aim big. I'll debunk that in a second. But another thing is basically his view is like, the goal is maximum entropy generation of humanity, which is basically like create the most useful information. So like, be creative, invent things. And then number three, his goal is ascend the Kardashev scale. So his view is that UBI and elimination of jobs prevents all of those things. And then Marc Andreessen, he has more of a classical conservative view, which is that like, work is good and that humans need work and that, and that if you have ubi, then you're going to be dependent upon the state and that that's bad. And I think those are the kind of the two primary things. They're also both of the opinion that technology only creates new jobs. But here's the thing, like, there's, there's, there's a little bit of a tacit admission because, you know, if they really, truly strongly believed that technology will only create new jobs, then they wouldn't be arguing that it'll only create new jobs. And also these are guys that are like fully pro maximum automation. They're like, to heck with consequences, automate everything. Which I'm, I'm in that camp. Like, that's, that's why I associate sometimes with these people, is like, yes, let's automate things because that's how you get abundance. But all right, so that's, that's kind of outlining their arguments. Again, very simplified. I will, I will own that. And if I mischaracterized anything, it's not on purpose. I'm not trying to do it in bad faith. But that's, that's my take on their view. So the rebuttal, first and foremost, let's just start with, with Gilver Nun's takes, which is like, you know, ascend the Kardashev scale to get to K1 civilization, maximize entropy generation, which is creating useful, novel information. And then incentive curves or incentive gradients. His argument falls flat on all of those. So let's just take some of the best entropy generators in history. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Elon Musk and everyone that he looks up to, they all had financial security. They came from wealthy families. You know, J. Robert Oppenheimer, he came from a very wealthy family as well. And so if you want to maximize entropy generation, you know, and you know, the, the great men of history almost all came from some level of security. My favorite example is Charles Darwin. He was chronically ill for most of his life. And the only reason that that didn't kill him is because he was gentry, which meant that he could afford to just stay, stay in bed for weeks at a time rather than work. And so, you know, he had stable income and that gave him the space to work for decades on his theory of evolution. So if your goal is to maximize entropy generation, then you want to avoid the lost Einstein's phenomenon, which universal financial security would help with that. So that's, that's rebuttal number one. Rebuttal number two is flattening the incentive gradients. So here's the thing. Universal basic income does not. That's not like universal high income, right? That there, there is an argument against universal high income because if you are making the equivalent of $300,000 a year doing absolutely nothing, then there is very little incentive to like start a business or reach higher. But basic income is like $1,000 a month, $2,000 a month. That's not even enough to cover rent. So, you know, there are still plenty of incentives to find something to do to try and make more money, to try and add more value. And also when he's talking about incentive gradients, he's talking about people like himself that are trying to build a billion dollar company. I'm sorry, but UBI in no way competes with the, like the payoff, the carrot of creating a billion dollar company and having, you know, a 7, 8, 9, 10 figure exit or whatever they're aiming for of personal wealth. So I think I covered it all. Oh, and then the Kardashev scale. So the final argument is if your goal is to ascend the Kardashev scale, which is basically just capturing and using more energy at a civilizational scale, then UBI is actually fantastic for that because increasing demand increases energy budget per capita. And so what I mean by that is if you give everyone like, let's just say every American household gets ubi, which means that they are able to spend thousands more dollars per year, that demand forces the economy to produce more goods and services, forces the economy to generate more energy, which then forces you to innovate and then ascend the Kardashev scale. Because right now we are in what's called a demand constrained economy, meaning that the economy, the infrastructure, that we have, all the goods and services and robots and everything could actually generate more wealth. But households don't have the ability to pay for it. So that's my, that's my rebuttal to Gill's being against ubi. None of his arguments as I, as I see them really stand up to any kind of scrutiny. And then Marc Andreessen's argument is. His are more like philosophical and moral at the, at the outset, which is basically just Protestant work ethic, which is work is good because reasons. And it really kind of reads as like, the peasants must toil. Right? So it's like that's, that's like what the French aristocracy said is like, you know, oh, it's just good for people to work, which at a, at a fundamental level, yes, like humans benefit from, from meaningful striving. But saying that that wage slavery is good, like, meets that need is like basically saying that, like, prison is good for your social life, right? Like, yes, prison forces you to have a social life in a very toxic and otherwise, like, unhealthy environment. And so, yes, it structurally meets that need sort of in the same way that wage slavery, yes, sort of meets your need for worthy striving and struggle. But you know what else does? Like, stuff that you do voluntarily. But also it's one thing when, you know, the, the, the feudalists, because these, these guys aren't the techno feudalists. Right, right. When we talk about techno feudalism, you're, you're talking about the world that people like Marc Andreessen and Gil Verdun, like, explicitly want to be part of and are explicitly building. So that's the feudal lord saying, you peasants need to actually keep working. Now that's not to say that, like, they're wrong in, in a certain respect, because, like, you know, Gilver Dunn works crazy hard. I don't know about Mark. I don't know how hard he works, but, you know, know, he certainly has time to do lots of podcasts. So on, on the one hand, there's that moral and philosophical thing, and yes, at a certain level, humans need to do stuff with their body and their brains to feel meaningful and to have a fulfilled life. That doesn't mean that wage slavery is the best way to do it, and it doesn't mean that UBI will invalidate any of that. Then the other, the other structural side, and this is where I actually agree with, with them pretty strongly, is that if you have a, if you have a citizenry that is a hundred percent dependent on the government, that's bad. And you know, Mark says stuff like, oh, well, we already have de facto UBI because you get free health care. And, and free food and free housing, which is like sort of, but not really like, yes, we have, we have a very large amount of transfer dependence in this nation. So like back in the 50s and 60s, transfer dependence was about 8% and now it's like 18%. So 18% is not 100% though. So let's just, let's just be honest about that. So if you're good, if he's going to be hyperbolic and kind of misrepresent things, then there's not really an argument to be made. So, you know, 18% transfer dependence is a far cry from 100% transfer dependence. And UBI is a kind of transfer welfare is a kind of transfer. Now, structurally though, you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. Nobody is saying that UBI is the only source of income. Nobody is saying that, ah, ubi. If people have ubi, they're just going to stop working and there's going to be no incentive for them to do anything else and that they shouldn't get money from any other anything else. And then to cap it off, the solutions that they say, like Gil's latest idea is UBT Universal Basic Tokens, which is UBI with extra steps. He calls it Neuro Capital, which is like, okay, so you just socialize the compute instead of just giving people universal tokens. Because guess what, a dollar is a token. So anyways, I don't think I need to really belabor the points. We covered all the bases. You know, what is the tech, right? What are their arguments and what are their rebuttals? Let me know what you think in the comments. Yeah, this was fun to make, so I'll see y' all later.
- [11:29]
C
Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com specialoffer.
- [11:57]
B
Cheers. Have a good one.