David Duvenaud

And I mean, maybe you could say, well, yes, things are working out for you.

But I guess I just feel like in general, it's very easy to, like liberalism is also just this very fragile thing.

And it's sort of this like amazing accomplishment that the West and just managed to create these norms of like, let the other guy choose his religion, let the other guy get rich.

It's like a very sort of fragile thing that like, I think even today, we should still try to protect if we can.

Yeah, so I think it'll be a less desirable way to organize society for a few reasons, but the main one is just the zero-sumness of UBI.

So, you know, right now when we all create our own wealth, it doesn't really hurt me if someone else creates their own wealth, like sort of directly from resources.

But in the world where we're all just like living in some like apartments advocating for UBI,

To the extent that the UVI pie is fixed, then we're really just like a bunch of baby birds like cheeping and whoever gets food is like less food for the other guy.

And then this also erodes the sort of like pluralism of values because the government's going to have to have some way of deciding like who gets resources.

And so if they end up having any opinions about like what

way of life is more valuable or needs to be subsidized more or whatever, that could be a threat to you.

So you kind of have to argue like that guy's way of life is less deserving of resources than my way of life.

And so now the government is forced to decide like whose sort of values are most like

Well, the fact of who gets subsidized.

That's the main effect.

Right.

So that's the big thing that's changed.

And there is, of course, a way in which this might not be zero-sum, right?

Like, if humanity manages to convince the AIs or whatever, the government, to give a larger UBI overall, then that is, like, the sort of normal positive-sum thing.

So that might not be, like, a slam-dunk argument.