If less people need to work while there is enough money to go around. What makes them freeloaders? Do you think children are freeloaders? What about retirees or veterans or disabled people?
I think they meant that retirees will move there to receive UBI. In that case, the bad thing is that suddenly the island has to pay for people that just went there to get free money.
Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing? Lets lock up the CEO without food until they come up with an acceptable solution. I hear hunger is a powerful motivator.
> Maybe the companies firing people or shutting down operations somewhere aren’t properly motivated to successfully retrain the people they are replacing?
No, at least not in the US.
A corporation has a primary fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.
Every promise ever made by a corporation to an employee or customer was just "so much bullshit, subject to change" in order to fulfill their legal obligation to the shareholders.
It's always been this way, no matter how many employees or workers actually believed said promises.
People still think the grocery store sells food as well, when the reality is that the nutrients are removed and sold elsewhere, reducing satiety, increasing sales due to intentional malnutrition.
And your doctor isn't sending you down the road to wellness when he prescribes you GLP1 antagonists instead of a proper diet and exercise.
The CEOs and boards who operated this way survived.
The ones who didn't, didn't.
I don't know how you are going to change the dynamic.
Any change will have to be approved by the powerful survivors, who know exactly how their behaviors have benefited them.
You're asking the king(s) to step down as king(s).
Accomplishing it historically has required force and rarely ended as planned.
But overall I agree with you, that if we are going to make a systemic change, the change should benefit those with the least, at the expense of those with the most, because that is a path towards equilibrium, not away from it as we have been progressing since the mid 70's.
And, AI may actually reduce the status of the wealthy the most, given, the more the individual can do for his/her self, the less we need a "corporate brain trust" to make a widget for us.
Economically, AI could play out to be the force that reduced the oligarchs to the same status as the common man.
If I was a American oligarch who became president due to my ties to social media platforms and influence I would also advocate european governments use American AI services.
The way you are thinking about this makes me think the eventual solution will be a black box label on the gas pump that says “Studies have shown that burning gasoline increases the risk of climate-change related weather events”
Ideally yes, and as another commenter pointed out they do. Moreover, they can’t lie and say alcohol is good for you. In fact they can’t say much at all, their advertising avenues are very limited. It’s even worse for tobacco.
They got in this mess not because they made bad products that kill people. That’s actually fine, no politician in the US cares about that. No, they got into this mess because they spend decades covering up the truth and trying to convince consumers “see, it’s not that bad!”
Now that’s a problem. If the product just killed people we could sit around and play the “free will” game. “Well you see consumers can choose to kill themselves!” But that game goes out the window when we pollute free will with deception.
What free will actually looks like is a price that reflects the actual cost of the product, as well as labels that make it clear “this will kill you”. Turns out, when we do that, a lot less people choose to consume the product.
> In particular, the bill bans design features such as infinite scrolling, artificial notifications and certain reward mechanisms.
Honestly I think it's good that there are more guide rails and safeguards implemented for kids.
As with any rules and regulations there will be loop holes and big corporations will still try to get away with as much as they can. But blocking the most harmful mechanisms and content while still keeping access open seems very reasonable.
> tech companies would be required to make their digital services safe by design
Sometimes I think even adults would benefit from rules blocking addictive features and mechanisms.
> [infinite scrolling, artificial notifications and certain reward mechanisms]
Of course the removal of bad algorithms is a good thing, but that is not the problem with the proposed legislation and approach.
> still keeping access open
What tells you that access will remain open? How will they implement access control? This is the big question, and the very fact that they are not replying to that clearly defines their faults.
> Sometimes I think even adults
They are again unrecognized minors of unduly age. Societies should minimize the phenomenon. Instead, they clumsily encourage it. To have adults in society you need to create and adult oriented society. To obtain adults in society you have to create the foundation in proper education.
reply