Imagine a homeless beggar with schizophrenia and alcohol addiction.

I suspect than at least half of homeless people are actually insane. Giving money to insane people doesn't fix their long-term problems. Might provide them food to survive the day, though. Even that would require to pay them the money daily... which should be technically achievable using ATMs, but then there is a risk of them losing / selling / getting stolen the debit card.

Another layer of the problem is that there are criminal organization preying on homeless people (the homeless pay them protection money from the money they get from begging, otherwise they will not be allowed to beg in "their territory"), so imagine where the basic income money would go.

tl;dr - it's complicated

GiveDirectly and the direct transfer RCTs in Africa/Third World countries don't answer the question about First World poverty because almost everyone, including the industrious and drug-free and high functioning people, in those countries is dirt-poor; in the First World, there is a much stronger correlation of pathology and poverty. To give an example, the direct transfers in Africa work because people there really are in poverty traps where $100 can make a big difference in letting them buy a cow or a motorcycle, and this is why the direct transfer RCTs show benefits; no one in America will show big benefits from a few transfers of $100 because poor people there have problems which can't be solved by some cash.

The upcoming YC-funded experiment will help test the generalizability of basic income results, and the original American experiments decades ago suggest that a basic income wouldn't cause lots of self-destructive behavior (or at least, wouldn't make things noticeably worse), but on the other hand, the natural experiments of lotteries in the USA and elsewhere like Sweden show minimal benefits to random shocks of wealth (which could've been invested for income). So I wouldn't be totally pessimistic, but I also wouldn't be surprised if BI experiments in the USA do worse than one would predict from the earlier GiveDirectly results.

I've had with poor people don't bear this out.

Are you talking about poor people, or the fellow dying in the street. There's a difference.

Thanks again In; this definitely answers a question about which I was curious.

Money, same as now. I'm not waving a wand and declaring superabundance here, just saying if we're not ready as a society to let people die of want, let's not mess about and let's just give everybody money. I do not have a counterargument to "He who does not work shall not eat," except to say that that is a coherent view and a different set of values than I think most of America holds. If you're okay with a lazy fella dying on the street, I don't know how to bridge the gap in basic premises.

A basic income won't help here. The lazy fellow dying in the streets will squander the money you give him on booze and drugs and then still be dying in the streets.

the output humanity will have anyway will run the world

Sure, but at which level? Hunter-gatherer societies have no "jobs" and "run the world" (or at least used to) -- would you like to go live in one?

if we're not ready as a society to let people die of want, let's not mess about and let's just give everybody money.

First, no one in America will die of starvation because of unwillingness to work. Right here, right now, no one.

Second, I don't see the need for the black-and-white approach: GBI or nothing. There are nuances and incentives matter.

Is it better to work five fewer hours a week to get to the moon a year later and keep the old iPhone an extra few months?

How about medical care?

In any case, if you want to discuss the issue it would help to get specific. For example, your main point is that GBI would be great. So specify how large ($/year) and what does "great" mean (what are you going to measure and what you will be willing to trade off for that).

Apologies for the digression and please feel free not to answer, but I'm curious: How were you able to retire at 33? Successful startup? Family money? Working in finance plus reasonable frugality?

there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone deciding to just live off the dole and not work

Within which framework? From an individual point of view, sure. From the point of view of the society, not so much -- someone has to produce value which this person will consume. Arguing that it's psychologically healthy to not work isn't a relevant argument here.

that people who don't have to work ... will have a better wheat/chaff ratio for what they do do

You know that the primary function of the markets is provide incentives for wheat and disincentives for chaff, right? They perform this function quite well. You will argue that without the guiding prod of the market people will produce more of better stuff all by themselves?

Initially I thought I'd take a few months, veg out, etc. After I lived that way for a while though I became interested in getting a new job again. Took a couple weeks from deciding to work again to getting the job.

So, sort of both? Started out with no strong opinions on work again vs. not, migrated to looking for job.

Why are you interested in a study? Studies typically tell you about the averages and in many cases the averages are not what you need. In some cases, they are, actually, what no one needs.

Some people fall apart without externally imposed structure, but some people thrive in the absence of constraints. The latter are often called "self-directed" or "self-motivated" or some other term like that. Both types exist, not to mention the intermediate cases, of course.