Slashdot Mirror


Kurzweil Predicts Universal Basic Incomes Worldwide Within 20 Years (hackernoon.com)

Google's director of engineering Ray Kurzweil made a startling prediction at the 2018 TED conference. Hacker Noon reports: "In the early 2030s, we'll have universal basic income in the developed world, and worldwide by the end of the 2030s. You'll be able to live very well on that. The primary concern will be meaning and purpose," he said onstage at the annual event...

Kurzweil believes that by 2029, computers will have human-level intelligence. It's not inconceivable then that AI will be distributing UBI to humans based on algorithms that are capable of crunching numbers in ways we cannot follow. Indeed, what we call the "State" in even just 10 years time may have been transformed by AI and blockchain tech in a way whereby even our experience of consensus decision making and democracy itself may have evolved.

5 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Re:His overly optimistic predictions... by smallfries · · Score: 3, Informative

    Remember ”curve jumping” and the continuation of Moore’s law out to the 2050s? Nah, me neither but they are classic Kurzweil. He should come round explain them to my four-year old 4770s that it is still not worth upgrading because performance has gone sideways.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  2. Re:What is the difference between this and communi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Communism involves ownership of the 'means of production'. Theoretically by 'the workers', in practice by 'the state'.

    First, there are almost no workers in Kurtzwell's vision, mostly just recipients. Communism's entire distinction between workers and capital becomes redundant. Second, Kurtzwell was unclear here but I suspect in his vision the AI resources are owned neither by the state nor by the few people working on them - his UBI is probably funded by taxation?

    Regardless of formalities, humans become an economical burden in this future. You can see what happens thereafter in all resource-based economies, technically socialist or not - like Russia, Iran or Venezuela.

  3. Re:Sure by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative
    Coinage was a way to replace the need to analyse and weigh every piece of metal before trading with a seal, and thus facilitating and speeding up trade. Because now, you could trade everything in an intermediate good (precious metals), which was easily storable and durable, and which then could be traded to the desired good once it was needed.

    Later in human history, it became clear, that the ability to easily count and store the coins and being able to exchange them at anytime was a different property than the intrinsic value of the precious metals, and both were separated of each other: On one side was the money, easily to count and to store and to exchange. And the other thing was the precious metal, now again a good like every other good as it was before the invention of coinage.

    In fact, money is just an abstract way to keep track of the amount of goods you have sold, and your ability to buy goods. And thus you can create money out of thin air the same way you can just get a piece of paper and put numbers on it to keep track of the count. What you need is the willingness of all others to respect the way you kept track. Legal tender is nothing else than the state giving out means to keep track and in exchange warrant that the count done with them is respected by the courts.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  4. Re: I find all of his "predictions" outrageous by snakeplissken · · Score: 4, Informative

    “For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”

  5. Re:Rationality is not rewarded by Goragoth · · Score: 5, Informative

    People tend to bring up the "why would anyone work" thing in UBI discussions all the time. The thing is UBI is supposed to be basic (that's the B). A UBI where everyone gets $80k/year wouldn't work (not until everything is 100% automated anyway). Most schemes talk about something around $10k/year. Enough to survive but with very little left for anything extra. Want a nice car? Fancy vacations? Private school for your kids? Then you will work.

    UBI just makes the welfare system simpler, ensures it is easier for people to get the help they need and prevents poverty traps where it makes more sense not to work because losing access to welfare would leave you worse off. It also removes the need for a minimum wage on top of that. Lastly it helps to take care of the ~10% of the population that has an IQ of under ~85 and is therefore pretty much impossible to employ in a way that is a net gain in productivity. Right now most welfare systems require you to look for work (if you are able bodied) in order to qualify, which leaves a number of unemployable people bouncing from job to job just to get fired over and over, costing productivity for no gain. UBI would also remove this inefficiency.