You hear UBI thrown around a lot by the AI crowd, often before or after the word "obviously" and the phrase "the government will." The people who talk about such-and-such political solution being INEVITABLE due to (some non political thing over here) have almost never spent even a moment paying attention to actual policy conversations that touch on their proposal. They usually have not looked at the political context either.

It is, in the year 2024, a Herculean effort to get the U.S. Congress to pass a functioning BUDGET. Every. fucking. year. The institution nominally in charge of the country grinds to a halt as it debates "Hey, should society continue existing? I'm not sure" for a few weeks because some asshole decides to throw sand in the gears over what the culture war issue is trending that day. Modest improvements to existing infrastructure or policy areas are MONTHS and YEARS long battles to get passed. And in the lucky event something does get happen, no one ever looks deeply into either the sustainability of the policy nor the implementation of the policy. Making sure the-thing-we-passed-helps-the-people-we-intended-and-is-functioning is always a Next Year problem for Somebody Else.

The very idea that, like, our government could get it together long enough to create and fund a long-term permanent UBI program is laughable. Insulting. "Well, it's a very obvious problem that a government will have to solve" you say. "How could they not solve it?"

My dude. Not solving very obvious problems that it is their job to solve is our legislature's speciality. It's what it lives and breathes for. On the metaphorical resumé of Congress, "finding reasons to not do things" is the first bullet point under "Strengths."

And UBI is not some trivial post-office naming bill. It would be a hugely contentious issue, as you'd have to decide fun questions like who qualifies to receive the money, how much money do they get and, most fun of all, who is going to pay for this. And whatever clever answer you think you have for that third question, I guarantee you they will immediately launch an all-out assault on your very soul once they catch a whiff of you attempting to redistribute THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to hoard piles of cash large and small alike.

It's an annoying statement to hear repeated because it's such a STEM-head "on my napkin this is all very simple" reflex that totally ignores the reality of the human beings and the society they live in.

"Socialists think we’re sociopathic Randroid money-obsessed Silicon Valley hypercapitalists."

No, Scott, we just think you're a coward and a racist

I see the former evangelical Christians who were converted into EAs are busy redpilling themselves back into their original beliefs

Which stems from a contempt for accountability itself

More depressing than amusing

My favorite Stewart Lee bit is about this. (In regards to conservative trolls, but the point still holds.)

It's just a joke!.... But in addition to it being a joke, it's also my sincerely held true belief.

https://youtu.be/K7CnMQ4L9Pc?feature=shared&t=265

My god some spectacularly bad takes on here. The top-rated one is just bananas-level stupid:

While there may be a substantial worldview gap, I suspect the much larger difference is that most Sneer Clubbers are looking to boost their status by trying to bully anyone who looks like a vulnerable target, and being different, as LessWrong is, is enough to qualify.

Yes, that's right. I spend my time boosting my status by (checks notes) commenting on the internet.

I'll go one further: "intelligence" as conceived by "IQ" is a mostly meaningless concept and the word, when used in everyday English, mostly just means "agrees with me"

This shit is just as bad, frankly. The quest to quantify and then rank All The Things is inherently dangerous.

Why is it so hard for these dorks to admit that they don’t actually care about being smart or rational and that they just want a bunch of other dorks to be friends with?

(Not to be trivially reductionist, but...) Because admitting you want friends is unmasculine. IBTP

I think the simplest explanation is that it appeals to their urge to ruthlessly quantify all human interactions, including statements about their worldview.

I mean, yes, but I feel like they at least put in some effort to give it a veneer of seriousness / normality. This struck me as being exceptional in its "we are right and you should go do this" tone with no effort whatsoever at quoting a dissenting voice.