If business co-shape UBI, they can ask it to be conditioned on completing training programs
I don't think you (or the chatbot that helped you with that reply) understand what "UBI" means. UBI is the proposal that everyone is given a fixed basic income, funded from taxes, unconditional upon anything. No means tests, no requirement to do anything to qualify, nothing. Everyone gets it, no matter what their circumstances. It might coexist with other welfare schemes, but those are not part of UBI.
Why does the US spend less than $0.1 billion/year on AI alignment/safety?
Because no-one knows how to spend any more? What has come out of $0.1 billion a year?
I am not connected to work on AI alignment, but I do notice that every chatbot gets jailbroken immediately, and that I do not notice any success stories.
- The style vaguely feels like something ChatGPT might right. Brightly polished, safe and stale.
It is definitely ChatGPT. There are a lot of things in the essay that make no sense the moment you stop and think about what is actually being said. For example:
At its core, UBI is about ensuring that everyone has the financial resources to meet their basic needs.
Not "at its core". That is what UBI is.
For businesses, UBI provides a stable customer base...
A customer base for buying basic necessities, but not for anything above that, like a shiny new games console. And a customer base for basic necessities already exists. Broadly speaking (a glance at Wikipedia), in the developed world it falls about 10 to 20% short of being the entire population, and there are typically government programs of some sort to assist most of them.
...and a workforce
How does UBI provide a workforce? UBI pays people whether they work or not. That's what the U means. One of the motivations for UBI is a predicted lack of any useful employment for large numbers of people in the near future.
By investing in UBI, businesses can
How does a business "invest in UBI"? UBI is paid by the government out of taxes.
The beauty of UBI lies in its potential to align individual aspirations with collective progress. By ensuring that basic needs are met, we free people to contribute their skills and energy to areas where they’re most needed
People will already pay people to do the work that they need done. Is it envisaged that under UBI, people will joyfully "contribute their skills and energy" without pay, at whatever work someone has judged to be "needed"? I don't know, but the more I look at this passage the more the apparent meaning drains out of it. There is nothing here but hurrah words. There is nothing in the whole essay.
Good question! By "seeing" I meant having qualia, an apparent subjective experience. By "visualizing" I meant...something like using the geometric intuitions you get by looking at stuff, but perhaps in a philosophical zombie sort of way?
I have qualia for imagined scenes. I'm not seeing them with my physical eyes, and they're not superimposed on the visual field that comes from my physical eyes. It's like they exist in a separate three-dimensional space that does not have any particular spatial relationship to the physical space around me.
I wonder if there's a connection with anthropic reasoning. Let's suppose that a bomb goes off on rolling an odd number...
What distinction are you making between "visualising" and "seeing"?
I've heard of that study about drawing bicycles. I can draw one just fine without having one before me. I have just done so, checked it, and every detail (that I included — this was just a two-minute sketch) was correct. Anyway, if people are as astonishingly bad at the task as the paper says, that just reflects on their memory, not the acuity of their mind's eye. I expect there are people who can draw a map of Europe with all the country borders, whereas I probably wouldn't even remember all of the countries.
That is the intuition behind the common rationalist/utilitarian/EA view that human lives don't decline in moral worth with distance. So why should they decline with lower quantum mechanical measure?
For the same reason that they decline with classical measure. Two people are worth more than one. And with classical probability measure. A 100% chance of someone surviving something is better than a 50% chance.
That's not an official test, just something I thought up!
As I just said in another comment, that is not what the term "UBI" was coined to mean. Everyone gets it, unconditionally. It's paid out in money, not coupons reserved for a particular use. No-one is required to do anything on account of receiving it.
If you want to talk about other welfare schemes that do not work like that, go ahead, but don't call them UBI.