It's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy popular artists, or give legal, medical and physiological advice to random people without possesing any kind of formal qualifications for giving said advice.
If I hired a hundred starving artists and a thousand students to provide the same services, my company would quickly be sued into the ground.
But just fire the people and add AI instead, and then I'm magically no longer responsible for the output. The picture becomes murky and we start to discuss how the AI was trained, if the training data was sourced legally and so on and so forth.
The same thing ("it's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy"... happened with search engines and the web when they took over from human curated lists of links. They made copies of websites en masse without asking permission of the copyright holders. They supplied enough value that laws were really only enforced or expanded by high-value highly organized rights holders (e.g YouTube removing videos with copyrighted audio.)
Denmark already have a limited form of the UBI when seen in that light. The state offers free education and a monthly "basic income" for people studying for a degree, for up to five years.
Sure, some people waste it. Some are just passive consumers, even shopping around between multiple educations without ever completing a degree. Some drop out half-way. Some get impractical degrees with few real job opportunities.
But enough people go on to become doctors and engineers and software developers and so on, and then have long careers that ultimately pays back the venture capital to the state, in the form of taxes. Most also work a side-job while studying to supplement the "basic income" stipend.
I don't personally believe that the majority of people will become unproductive consumers with an UBI. I think that societal pressure to contribute, the wish to enjoy luxuries, and to get status is enough for the majority to still work. I think that the added safety net of the UBI will also allow more people to take a risk on a dream, and perhaps make it big in art, in inventing new stuff, in science or in politics. And, as in VC investments, the few big hits will hopefully pay for the failures.
> Denmark already have a limited form of the UBI when seen in that light. The state offers free education and a monthly "basic income" for people studying for a degree, for up to five years.
Your example has absolutely nothing to do with UBI, other than the fact that a small minority gets paid a stipend. It's not universal as it's conditionally granted only to a very small subset of society (students) throughout a limited time (5 years). At best it's another social safety net that is granted to people who would otherwise have no access to higher education.
Yet, in your example you already acknowledge that even when granted to a very specific subset of society which is motivated and mobilized to seize that opportunity to fund personal growth, it is also abused in ways that go exactly against it's purpose as it provides perverse incentives that attack equity at it's core.
> I don't personally believe that the majority of people will become unproductive consumers with an UBI. I think that societal pressure to contribute, the wish to enjoy luxuries, and to get status is enough for the majority to still work.
I'm afraid your personal hopes are misguided and based only on wishful thinking. There are plenty of examples in areas such as social housing where benefits are linked with immunity to "societal pressure to contribute". Providing a resource unconditionally represents a clear incentive to eliminate whatever incentives there are to secure it.
> I'm afraid your personal hopes are misguided and based only on wishful thinking
Oh, I knew somebody would go there. My personal hopes are at least as valid as the blanket statement that everybody will automatically fall to the lowest denominator and contribute as little as possible given the chance. I'm just honest enough to prefix my predictions with "I believe."
And of course the Danish education stipend is not a real UBI. Nobody has implemented a real ubiquitous and unlimited UBI. But there have been trials, like the one in Finland involving 2000 people over two years. Compared to that, I think the Danish "trial" may be closer to the real thing. It has run since 1970 and involves all students of higher education in the country in that entire time frame.
If I was a researcher trying to figure out what happens if you give a group of people a monthly stipend with very few requirements and no stipulations about how the money are going to be used, then I at least would regard that as valid data.
1) Any research institutions that receive government funding are required to spent 10% (or 15% or 20% or whatever) of their total budget on replication. If they don't, they stop receiving any government funding.
2) When citing a paper scientists are required to include any replication studies, both successful and not successful.
This would hopefully lead to more replication studies being done, even if it doesn't answer the question of what to do with a study until it's been replicated sufficiently.
The second part would help us guess the validity of a paper. Papers that base their central premise on studies with multiple independent replication would probably be a bit more trustful than papers based on unverified studies.
It's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy popular artists, or give legal, medical and physiological advice to random people without possesing any kind of formal qualifications for giving said advice.
If I hired a hundred starving artists and a thousand students to provide the same services, my company would quickly be sued into the ground.
But just fire the people and add AI instead, and then I'm magically no longer responsible for the output. The picture becomes murky and we start to discuss how the AI was trained, if the training data was sourced legally and so on and so forth.