“A […] system that […] would make people welcome better AI because they could be confident it would make everyone wealthier”
That would be a fair system regardless of the specifics of how it’s achieved.
Even when nearly everyone gets wealthier, if inequality grows, most people don't feel like it's fair.
Make it comically small to start, like say 0.25% of GDP split evenly between all citizens. Based on 2021 US stats, that's $176 per person per year. That seems relatively unobjectionable regardless of your politics, even assuming that the % is likely to drift higher over time.
With increasingly advanced AI and cheap energy, GDP would rise over the long run independently of population, ultimately increasing the UBI to a livable salary.
In terms of legislative complexity, I can't see how closing all major corporate tax loopholes would be simpler than implementing whatever minor tax revenue increase is necessary to offset a $176 UBI.
Our present system, by this definition, is amazing!
That’s a non-sequitur.
The resulting absurdity is why OP was right to ask what fairness was: everyone has their own belief in it, oriented towards equality or proportionality or some notion of deserving.
I prefer a system where people that work harder get more so they can have what they want, rather than just the bare minimum to survive (which is presumably what is meant by “what they need”).
Cool. When can we expect to have that?
That’s fine and good, but I think many people imply that this is how our current system works. Which is just not the case.
