By making decisions under the assumption that society will continue.
Even under the reduction to absurdity of everyone's jobs being replaced in a year, there's still some system of allocating resources and they would still like more resources allocated to them. That system still likely bears resemblance to the current economy and convincing people/selling the ability to convince people is likely still a valuable ability to have.
By making decisions under the assumption that society will continue
That seems completely at odds with "everyone will be replaced by AI"
Even under the reduction to absurdity of everyone's jobs being replaced in a year, there's still some system of allocating resources and they would still like more resources allocated to them
I pretty strongly disagree. If everyone's jobs are replaced, I think society is over. I just don't believe that the UBI style future is going to play out in any kind of peaceful way
That seems completely at odds with "everyone will be replaced by AI"
You yourself give an example of how it might not be, UBI.
The assumption doesn't have to be likely here. It can be the case that you think society is probably going to end - that UBI (nor any other measure to preserve society) won't be implemented or will fail. Whether that's today with AI, or yesteryear with being convinced society will end in premature nuclear armageddon. It's just that if society ends nothing you do has a notable impact (especially as a corporate entity which exists merely as an agreed upon abstraction, but even as a human) - so you might as well behave under the assumption that somehow society will persist whether through UBI or something else.
(I'd like to note somewhere that this entire post is also reasoning under the reduction to absurdity here that every job is performed by AI as of next year - not something I actually think is remotely likely.)
Comments
By making decisions under the assumption that society will continue.
Even under the reduction to absurdity of everyone's jobs being replaced in a year, there's still some system of allocating resources and they would still like more resources allocated to them. That system still likely bears resemblance to the current economy and convincing people/selling the ability to convince people is likely still a valuable ability to have.
That seems completely at odds with "everyone will be replaced by AI"
I pretty strongly disagree. If everyone's jobs are replaced, I think society is over. I just don't believe that the UBI style future is going to play out in any kind of peaceful way
You yourself give an example of how it might not be, UBI.
The assumption doesn't have to be likely here. It can be the case that you think society is probably going to end - that UBI (nor any other measure to preserve society) won't be implemented or will fail. Whether that's today with AI, or yesteryear with being convinced society will end in premature nuclear armageddon. It's just that if society ends nothing you do has a notable impact (especially as a corporate entity which exists merely as an agreed upon abstraction, but even as a human) - so you might as well behave under the assumption that somehow society will persist whether through UBI or something else.
(I'd like to note somewhere that this entire post is also reasoning under the reduction to absurdity here that every job is performed by AI as of next year - not something I actually think is remotely likely.)