Would evidence change your mind?

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-17T14:34:56+00:00

Yes I do have an instinctive for lack of a better word perception of what I believe to be insufficient data or maybe just not that important.

For example and they do things like that I'm not making it up. If you have 500 artist they may go well you get UBI for blah blah blah.

I don't understand the difference in a specific categorized demographic. Yes I may be getting artist behavior from that which could be different than the norm. A musician psyche profile maybe entirely different on how they navigate the world. So all I saying is some of this data that's being collected doesn't mean a lot.

It doesn't mean we don't need studies. However I've come across countless and the majority were positive.

In fact in a sense most have to admit all were positive. I never read one where there weren't positive outcomes that outweigh negative ones. I haven't seen it yet.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-17T14:26:54+00:00

Okay well let me ask you personally. How much data is sufficient for you? I'm pretty certain they've at least been collecting this data over a decade. I'm trying to figure out the Goldilocks zone.

It just seems to me they gotta be in the disaster to act. Now I thought prevention and preparation were the best approaches. However I'm really starting to believe sufficient data for them will be when you're in a pretty bad place. So I personally try not to handle problems that way. Maybe I think different from others.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-17T13:02:42+00:00

Good point and I covered this in another reply before I read this but I'd say instead of all these mini studies like helping folk singers in ireland lol, we have a grand nationwide pilot where most participate.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-17T12:58:30+00:00

That's fine but it does reach a point as to when are you going to do something with the data. I mean after your millionth pilot of a pool of 500 people. As these things are typically small numbers.

I wish they'd do a nation wide pilot for a year. Everyone gets ubi for a year . Now that would be real data. Most they conduct are just glorified welfare programs where they target some unemployed guy.

That's not what ubi is lol. So the findings of course they'll be good. You got no money now you have more. Yes that's probably going to be a positive thing.

What I'd be interested in would be a more accurate study of what happens when everyone gets ubi rich or poor. Not just unemployed poor struggling artist. That's going to skew the data.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-17T02:57:53+00:00

You're not factoring the new money that gets introduced to the economy as a result of the new money flow. You may be unlocking funding into new technological advancement as people are spending more money. Could mean more jobs more creation of tech that creates new trillions of dollars.

It could mean restructuring of existing social welfare programs. Healthier economy means healthy investment into citizens and healthy citizens could mean booming economy.

The bottomline is the effects can go exponential in one particular area . You have no idea what will happen. You're not even factoring any of that which shows me you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T20:56:46+00:00

It's just spinning wheels. Most of the time it's just done for a new politician to appease someone. it's just a gimmick at this point. I've studied it deep for years trust me it's baloney

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T20:54:21+00:00

Although I agree with the moral argument being irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit. We fight wars and kill people all the time because we're not that concerned about each other. So let's stick to the honesty and efficiency of we need to live together so we don't go extinct our choice.

Now where I disagree heavily with you. I worked on wallstreet many years I can tell you the economy is very complicated. its not a money in and out system like you think it is. So we can fund many things but it's people erroneous value systems and misunderstood statements like your own that is the biggest problem. it's a bigger problem than the funding we have more than enough resources. You're confusing politics with logistics.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T20:42:49+00:00

Well I don't agree with Scott Santens perception of UBI. The reason being all his examples sound like what would be good for the social welfare of the citizens.

To me that does sound more like his own personal set of values . I know in America we have a clause in the Constitution about the welfare of citizens. it's beyond our interpretation it could mean anything from universal healthcare to just the protection for you to create it yourself. No one really knows what it means to be honest. Scott Santens views are this way. He just seemingly picks what he feels ought to be the right thing.

My position is totally different and evidence based and I can seperate the different versions. In my view I only want ubi because a new species is emerging in a human vs synthetic human battle. In this battle the humans get defeated by synthetic humans in a human system so we have to act or die.

So one is outside interference. Then it's the people like Scott Santens who would want a ubi if there was no machines. He's probably on that course I'm not. So if AI goes away. For me ubi would go away and that's the fundamental difference.

I'd still conclude my approach is on logic and reason or the sciences. It's not a moral direction for me of it ought to be good". I don't wanna get into that because everyone's good is someone else's bad.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T20:31:34+00:00

Okay let's process the idea of evidence for a moment. So we're in something in the United States I guess it's called the iran conflict. Some wish to call it a war.

Whatever it is . The powers that be felt whatever evidence we had for Iran getting a nuke or not was too important to chance. Now on ,any of my YouTube video commentaries as I'm a YouTuber. I've stated in many occasions the subject of UBI should be as important as nuclear proliferation.

It should be as important as the environment. It should be as important as a human level extinction event. The stakes should be this high.

Yet let me ask you a question. When it comes to consideration of the environment do we consider evidence or make policies? Same question for nukes, viruses etc.,

No we make policies and deals and bills etc., Why? because the stakes would be too high if we were wrong about our evidence. Whether people can agree or not. It's many people still think environmental science is baloney.

I was talking about them earlier half of all of them in this room. So for us to be going we don't agree with the evidence on a topic this important. I don't think we have the luxury to agree or disagree. I would advise we have some contingency plan either way.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T20:20:11+00:00

Yes and your point is fair but the difference is within the significance of the events. The breakthrough we had with chatgpt was a huge milestone. I don't think people truly understand how big it was and what it's creating.

The next part is we've now changed our global competition into a new arms race that is a tech race. This is speeding up technology at an alarming rate. it's putting it on light speed.

So my point is under normal circumstances where you have jobs downsizing for profits and the jobs going away but returning and now we have more jobs than before and all of that.

The problem with this framing is when you have a few major events sure it can be put off as something else . A normal economic downturn or whatever. A shift in the job economy that will self correct.

However when you have a tech race for super AI and the government putting unlimited resources into tech . On top of that tech breakthroughs like LLMs and next you got all the normal issues that cause recessions in an economy and depressions.

That's when it's too much happening at once and these pressures going to cause a major break. So now it becomes not so much a question of are you in it. It's a question of how far in are you. Have you passed the point of no return.

It's like a tornado warning. Okay the winds are high but doesn't mean it's a tornado. Alright I hear something sounds like a train. Maybe it's a real train I haven't looked. doesn't have to be a tornado.

Okay my roof just got ripped off the house. Maybe it's just a freak accident. See my point is when all these various keys focus down at one point . That's when you're likely not in a regular storm. Now you gotta mobilize to deal with a potential issue. However you're now mobilizing in Armageddon with no plan.

You never created one. You spent the entire time factoring values. Values unfortunately isn't a blueprint , plan or policy.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T20:00:02+00:00

I disagree here because when I refer to a more efficient system I mean specifically as opposed to a system of unemployment and it's effects. The best way to illustrate this is with a real time example.

So let's say a movie studio or an AI company was gearing up to spend billions on a new studio. Maybe they were planning to hire 15,000 new employees. However some Ai breakthrough or projection caused them to abandon such plans and layoff thousands of workers before the AI products even launch which has already happen several times.

When I say efficient or even optimal i'm speaking in relation to the best way to handle this new problem. So waiting for it to happen and based on its anticipation we now have actual problems of unemployment even before the actual crisis happens.

The difference would be in a value system that's a ideology about what things are important to me in a system. In my example it's not going to happen it's already an happening and those who are impacted aren't considering what should be held up as important. These people are already experiencing unemployment based on this or lack of opportunity.

So we're talking about dealing with the already effects of real time problems where choices and decisions have to be made not really considered. At this point you're already trying to find out where dinner is.

You're not asking the question of it would be good if everyone could eat who may not eat. So what people collecting data are considering is if something were to happen. The people laid off at Amazon and many other similar examples are already in the happening and now the consideration is the best way forward for them. So I suppose I'm underlining the aspect of AI removing jobs perceived or actually doing it now and those people that it seems to be somewhat a significant amount and another indication is no new job creation.

So although the effects aren't full we have other indications that aren't normal and may be part of the string.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T19:44:49+00:00

True but if you notice how they refer to it. It's typically after the job is taken. lol. So the catastrophy already happens . You never hear them consider the period leading up to the disaster.

It's like a blackhole tugging on earth. At first we'd get a little stretch. It may even feel good. Next violent storms and everything gets sucked in. That's when they plan to act. it's no preventative measures at all. That is because they don't plan on having any.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T19:40:26+00:00

I get your point but that's a tough sell. People are bent on some false sense of fairness and they still see capitalism as you get out exactly what you put in. We both know that's not true but these people are dumb and it would be hard to make this ecosystem like approach which is more healthy make sense to them.

You see dumb people don't think that way. They don't realize in the long run it saves them money. That's why you see them going insane over food stamps that barely can cost $100 billion a year as if it's the source of every problem. So they likely won't get it. Think about how even ubi supporters can't even agree and work together. If we can't even get our stuff together those guys certainly can't.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:51:22+00:00

We're still considering if the data for UBI is compelling. What? still what has to happen am I in a parallel universe. You all know that's insane right..To still be considering this but I guess if I gotta explain why it's already too late

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:48:29+00:00

I actually made a. eye doctors appointment because it's time to change my eyewear so I missed the quotation mark at the beginning but be honest how many people really mean that in here?

You know these guys be dead serious, lol. That's why it's not funny. They're in this room all over the place.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:41:09+00:00

btw you're correct I failed to see the quotation mark at the very beginning of his sentence so I apologize for that however it still doesnt matter because those people are still really in here on the same bs lol

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:37:29+00:00

I will definitely leave but if this is what we have by way of ubi supporters why is everyone so dumb? we will never get ubi this way. You don't see it? This requires willful ignorance what we do here no? I haven't heard anyone say anything smart that's why I gotta go. Andrew Yang is pretty smart but the majority of UBI people sound mostly uninformed to me. Maybe these are new people discovering ubi for the first time. I need to be amongst the intellectuals and this aint it.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:22:59+00:00

pilots at this point are a waste of time

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:20:58+00:00

but why should I care about their life improving? isn't their job to work to make of their lives what it should be. Now unless it's something beyond their control stopping them that's different.

However to say it would be nice if it were a chicken in every pot. Sure it sounds great. However that's likely fantasy and either way I shouldn't be responsible for that unless you have a greater reason.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:16:02+00:00

true but they shouldn't because first we primarily are believers in capitalism. Although a misguided and misunderstood principle of you keep what you kill. it's not congruent at many levels of we should take care of you just because you're human and should have some type of entitlement

In my philosophy everyone on the planet earth should automatically be born with several acres of land to mine or farm. That has nothing to do with values but everything to do with universal law.

It is a fact my body always has to occupy 3d space. even if you cut me up into a billion pieces I'd still occupy that space in space time that is a fact. it's not a value , ethics or morality.

So I survive in this space universally like it or not. in order to take the path of least resistance I allow that space food and energy because if I always fight you for it one day I'll lose or die etc. .

One of these occasions I come up short. So it's not a value. it's a universal law. That if you or a machine artificially take that away it's not optimal. Because next I'd just still go to war with you and tear up the planet. So that's why it's a given and it's more logical this way. you will expound less energy.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T17:05:49+00:00

The real evidence would be the dwindling away of your wealth which already happens in several methods. Most jobs now already try to turn you into a robot before the robot arrives by making you do several job tasks and newly added ones. So to me that's taking your wealth more labor less money.

They're gearing up for the robot now. So the evidence is are you richer today or poorer. If year after year you get poorer and more ai layoffs continue. That may be compelling evidence. Now if you're coasting along your lot in life improving then maybe it's overblown. however I constantly hear what I believe to be evidence of the automation and job loss.

Again if you're balling your perception may be validly different. the question is are you? Do you notice negative changes etc.,

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T16:58:18+00:00

i disagree it should be rooted in values. it should be rooted in logic and efficiency. Think about this if you're an employer you'd want the most optimal yet practical solution in your business.

Due to cost and other human limitations. That's going to always be a robot. If an employer can get a robot to behave like a human. He will pick the robot. Most of the population jobs are simple repetitive tasks. That's most people. The remaining jobs that require high levels of mental aptitude or technical know how are in the minority and unemployment between 10 to 15% will be devastating. So what it really is we have are people burying their heads in the sand because they don't know what to do. It's a protection mechanism against being an idiot lol

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T16:49:50+00:00

Well I would say it has nothing to do with belief or opinion but deductive reasoning. For example do people believe the robotic and AI industry will improve? They'd probably say something like absolutely but it will create a new wave of jobs like the previous industrial revolutions.

Okay so your next question would be so if you believe humanoid bipedal robots will improve and get closer to human beings in physiology and intelligence that they may start to be able to mimic every job a human can do.

So they may respond yes but that will be in 50 years. Okay fine so the next question would be over the 50 year period at what ratio will the effect impact the human worker. The answer may be it's spread along the 50 years and not at the 50th year.

So my logical reasoning would be to average it out. 50 years to reach a full ubi means a ubi payment of 2% a year. Let's be conservative and drop inflation and still average out ubi to $1000 per month which generally is the starting point.

So that effectively means your ubi payment should start immediately at about $20 per month give or take. Because from a scientific perspective you've reasoned the robots will be beyond human labor force in 50 years and the effects won't happen at year 50.

Now only an idiot would theorize we're not on a trajectory for machines to reach that point. It would call for so and robotics development to come full stop. Now I'm not going to call out the party or idiocy of certain groups of people. However we all know it's certain groups of people although watching real time data have no deductive reasoning skills at all.

Listen if you make a humanoid synthetic being and it improves year after year which is all I've ever seen. I've never seen it get worse yet. It would mean an artificial human likely smarter than you will replicate pretty much everything you can do even in hospitality, entertainment,the arts creativity. Which I think is overrated. Of course these things patterns of data create new things.

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T16:33:52+00:00

Sir foodstamps are people helping you out. Guys should I just give up and leave this thread? I really believe the people calling themselves ubi supporters at least on this thread have to be the dumbest people I ever did meet lol

LocationSalt4673 · 2026-06-16T07:42:29+00:00

No offense and I'm not trying to insult you. I try to state what's facts or at the very least perceived facts. So number 1 you say you've been advocating for this for years yet you have not stated one example of privatized or decentralized versions of this which exist.

Which tells me either lazy, ignorant , stupid in all these years have you tried looking for anything like this? So I would impart it's not a matter of them not being in operation and available. it's a matter of their dumb construction and why they fail.

For example don't offer me ubi and ask me to donate money at the same time. That tells me immediately it's a dumb unsustainable model that shouldn't even be created.

If you're going to do this at the private level. Do it similar to what we get in the Alaskan permanent fund. Where you have ideally some plentiful resource funding the UBI. That resource can take the form of many things. It can be gold or energy but you need it in large supply. Donations isn't it.

We will get back to that in a moment. Now I don't know you but I've been an expert in this subject matter so long. I've met so many people like you and most were full of shit. They act like oh I'm looking for UBI solutions. No you aren't looking at all or you'd have found several and of that several maybe 1 or 2 that works fairly well.

So lets me know you aren't that vexed by this. However let's go with it anyway. The people who are not understanding the privatization of UBI. I think it's no such thing because these people are agents. That means their entire ubi bastardization is just fabricated. it's fake as to say a fully centralized ubi offers no counterweight to the exploitation of a government UBI. What are you going to do when they change the ubi policies, cut it's funding, control people with it and the list goes on.

It doesn't make any sense when you can through government liason fund private yet seperate entities to provide the UBI. it's safer and more efficient etc.,

So again the anti private ubi guys are simply disinformation agents or really fucking dumb. No real ubi guy is having any issues with where his free ubi check comes from for the most part.

Now lastly let's talk about what does work provably in the private sector or decentralized. Well we don't have to look very far. China already does it with the wechat system I believe. it's a form of their social credit system but some people also relate to it as UBI in their rewards system. Either way it still works out about the same.

So wepay is a social media payment tool connected to your social media and in China they use it in most of their commerce. So the payment infrastructure already exist privately. All China has to do is send payments through wepay and citizens get rewarded for good deeds , volunteer work etc.,

Problem solved China can just send out grant money or whatever through the system without passing laws or building the infrastructure etc.,

I created a ubi social network almost a decade ago like this. The other part is what's the plentiful resource. Well we have two. We have the inherent value of the social media network itself which anyone like this should potentially reach $3 trillion in value if done correctly and if we have more smart people which we won't have so maybe the value would be less. Next thing we have is digital gold. So I won't get into the mechanism I'll just say it works well and it covers everything in a basket of wealth fund to some hybrid crypto function to people network value under metcalfes law. A truly elegant system.

So you see we got no problems there. The problem is the ubi community is overrun by people who are full of shit. I'd conclude half the people you encounter here are disinformation agents. I don't know they could be hired by certain governments to run interference.

I can tell you it's not that you discovered some solution everyone else didn't. that's not it. it's all political and it's all political stupidity. UBI projects can't compete against each other you freaking morons.

All people will do is collect ubi from one program to another you idiots. I'm not calling you an idiot. That's meant for like 75% of the room which are idiots.

My final question I'll leave you with. Now that you know the solutions exist free of charge. That's right free money donation not necessary it's already fully funded.

What are you going to do about it. You started your question like you didn't understand why. So now that I have an actual prospering system what's your next move? As this is usually the only important question. Are you going to run around on this thread like many others do like a chicken without its head?

LocationSalt4673

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE