So I'm reasonably high earning, and a pretty big chunk of my money already goes on taxes. If you earn around the median wage you actually net negative when it comes to taxes paid vs benefits received. The well-off already pay the majority of taxes.

So say we get AGI in 2024, and companies start laying off people en masse in 2025, and unemployment is steadily increasing.

The people who make the decision on how to manage this are the politicians, and they rely on votes. So the first they will do (in Europe) is probably to put a moratorium on people being laid off because they have been replaced by AI.

Meanwhile unemployment will continue to increase, just a bit more slowly.

As the situation develops and companies complain that they are not being allowed to be as productive as they could be due to regulation (actually a common situation for any safety regulation for example) there will come a need for resolution.

Since 2024 everyone would have been discussion UBI, and the groundswell for this will increase. There will be marches for UBI in the street, and talking heads will raise it constantly on the TV.

So eventually the government agrees to implement a UBI tax on companies based on their revenue and pay a living wage stipend to everyone. Because everyone gets money there would be broad support from the populace.

Companies are allowed to freeze hiring and slowly empty out their offices, but maintain their revenue, and then we have UBI.

Sure, but there is quite a bit of momentum behind the UBI movement, so if mass unemployment via AI comes, it seems likely it is UBI we will get.

There is also the eternal torture option of course.

But imagine the utopic walkable community which could be built on fresh ground, instead of repurposing streets designed for carts.

That would not be UBI, though, would it?

UBI is universal basic income, which people would get irrespective of their needs. If you don't need your version, why would you need a dormitory bed and government cheese?

The safety concern is a real thing. Men won't known this, but women get approached constantly in the most mundane and bizarre situations, including just parking by the side of the street, and can be very pushy.

Men are weird sometimes.

An AI developed from nothing may have very unusual ideas (an AGIZero), but the current lot seems to be patterned very much after human thinking.

> Why would they value human life to the detriment all other species?

Because we made them?

That is what many environmentalists want to do right now.

There will not be the need for masses of rolling hills of grains for example. If people want to hobby farm I am sure they could, but the whole world will become manicured by drones.

Well, you know everyone is going to die.

Well, either that or we are all dead.

Yes, if there is AGI and UBI, people will move from the cities, as they do not have to work for their money, and they would want to live where its cheapest.

We could have millions of people living in 3D printed houses on previous farmland, as farms are replaced with precision fermentation.

Energy would be via solar, data via satellite, water via extraction from the air and garbage via drone.

> Rich people don't leave their money in banks

You were suggesting Elon Musk sell all their shares. Where would the liquid money go? Under his bed?

> Imagine if earth got twice as much habitable land and resources suddenly, you wouldn't expect this to make rich people lose all their wealth.

Strangely enough this is the logic of the flat earth movement lol

Lots of people's wealth is tied up in their property, and it is believed that this is why they resist the creation of more housing which would lower their property value.

In a simpler form - say someone presses a button and new land appears next to old land, free to claim - people would not need to buy the old land, they could just claim the new land, which would crash the price of the old land.

Or if we land an astroid, and your wealth was tied up in gold, you may suddenly find yourself much less wealthy.

So yes, if you suddenly increase supply, you will lose wealth.

> The discovery of the new world didn't make Europe's Kings get poor.

That's probably because it made one of them very rich.

But then the money would be in the bank, and the bank's assets would depreciate in the same way, and he could lose every single cent. Just look at SVB.

Evolution and exposure to data programmed humans.

Are you implying some kind of devine intervention? Because by definition any one turing complete system can emulate any other.

Some of those are intrinsic (like health) but most other things depend on society to give them value.

Say for example you are a property tycoon with numerous skyscrapers in New York. When most of Manhatten is dead, your property is worthless.

Or say you have a mega-yacht like Bezos, you sail it to Tahiti, but when you get there the local population and tourist attractions are empty, because everyone is dead.

And who are you impressing with your gigantic yatch when 99% of people are dead, and the other 1% can just get their robots to build a similarly sized boat?

We are going in circles a bit, but your point, of course, is that current AI models cant do symbolic manipulation, which is very evident when they do complex maths.

The real question is however if you can implement a classic algorithm in a probabilistic neural network and the answer, of course, is yes.

Especially Recurrent Neural Networks, which are, in theory, Turing Complete, can emulate any classic computer algorithm, including 1+1.

How much would Elon Musk be worth when 720 million potential customers are dead and only 80 million people, who prefer to be driven in Bentleys, are left.

How rich will the Walmart heirs be when their store customers are rotting in the aisles?

The wealth of the 1% of based on business with the 99%.

If you ask a LLM, they would very well assign a probability to 1+1=2. That probability would not be 100, but would be very close.

1% of 8 billion is 80 million.

USA is the richest country in the world, with 330 million people.

It stands to reason the majority of the 80 million will be Americans.

Americans also have the most guns and advanced killing technology in the world, and most don't have a passport.

I think it is very likely the 1% is indeed plotting to kill off the rest of the world.

It turns out the phone call is indeed coming from inside the house.

> The connections between neurons in the brain are much more complex than those of the artificial neurons used in the connectionist neural computing models of artificial neural networks.

I said they are a simplified version upthread. You know like aeroplane wings are a simplified version of pigeon wings. Does not mean they don't work by the same principle.

> And how would being in probability solve mathematical problems?

100% of the time, 1+1 =2.

Pretty simple.

> Biologists haven't said anything about how human neural networks work.

Get educated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_circuit

> That's like saying all mathematical problems can somehow be solved with statistics and probabilities. And that's just sheer nonsense.

Of course we can. 1 and 0 are both part of the probability cloud.

You seem to think because NNs are currently bad at symbolic thinking they are not intelligent. The funny thing is 30 years ago people thought pattern matching was what set human intelligence apart from computers.

It's just a question of time.

Because we have biologists tell us how they work. We can actually examine the neurons, the axons, the dendrites and synapses.

So we know how biological human networks work, and we simulate how they work in computer neural networks.

We know its just stats and probabilities.