Then it is completely fair for me to not give you any wealth because the machines out perform you.
People fear AI because the fair outcome is in fact detrimental for a good portion of humanity.
That is the paradoxical irony. In theory to save people you must function as a welfare state with things like ubi. You must deliberately distribute income unfairly. The practical course of action goes against our moral instincts.
This is only true for perverted definition of the word "fair" which allows owners/investors to perpetually capture 99.9% of the value produced by people who research, develop, build, and operate "your" machines.
When this is your ground truth, I can see how you would perceive a truly fair distribution of value created through thousands of years of collective human ingenuity, creativity, and hard work, as "unfair". Particularly in a post-singularity world where AGI and robots replace the majority of human work.
No. That is the perverted idea. I'm simply talking about fair as in fair trade. As in what is defined as a fair trade and a fair transaction according to economic theory and common sense. I am using the absolute most normal and most common sense meaning of the word "fair."
You are the one in your words: "perverting" the meaning. Perversion is actually too strong of a word. I would say you are definitely twisting the meaning and using an uncommon and sort of made up definition.
According to the most common usage of the word fair those who own AI only owe what they paid for. If they give away money then the economy is becoming more socialist or in another words an even distribution of wealth, but certainly unfair in the eyes of capitalism and fair trade and the fair exchange of goods.
Keep in mind though I'm not blindly supporting capitalism. The future of society may rely on a more practical but more unfair distribution of wealth. But we have to face the fact that such a distribution is fundamentally unfair.
The thought is this: we are not a society of cavemen or subsistence farmers. We're the richest society in our history by far, so all people should enjoy the fruits of such a society.
Let's say you develop a debilitating illness that robs you of your ability to produce income. Or, you have a loved one—a child—that is debilitated and will never participate in the normal "fair trade" society.
Society condemns them to a life of poverty and suffering because of their debilitation. Is that "fair" in the context of our economic surplus? If it is fair, how much more should our economic surplus be in order for these debilitated individuals to have a decent life? Will they never ever have a decent life and that's just what we decide for ourselves?
This is ultimately a moral question. Can we imagine or create a society that yields better standard of living outcomes regardless of that person's status or capability? Andrew Yang's UBI policy was essentially because he had a son with down syndrome.
If you had down syndrome, would you prefer the "fair trade" definition of fairness, or the "fair living" definition?
What I'm trying to say is that your framing of the issue in terms of "fairness" isn't very productive. It may be your opinion that any given arrangement is fair, but the concept of "fairness" is really just a social construct. If your fellow citizens disagree, they are ultimately the ones who will rally to change the system. At first electorally, and failing that, through violence.
unless you're going to start your own nation state you are still subject to the whims of the electorate
and they are not going to like this, one bit
The current electorate 100 percent supports this and considers this fair. You actually have to create a new nation state if you don't want this.
how do you explain the significant market for hand made products?
regardless, this wasn't my point
my point was the electorate aren't going to support e.g. Microsoft replacing every single worker in the US with a piece of code
regardless of Microsoft's opinion as to what it thinks is fair
