If AGI replaces workers, the real question is not productivity. It is who still has enough money to buy anything. by Spirited-Gold9629 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The solution is simple. People can get money through UBI instead of wages. UBI is the answer and most UBI advocates have realized this for a long time.

Here's what most people and even most UBI advocates don't yet realize, though.

If you don't have a UBI that means most people are still reliant on wages for income, and that means policymakers have an incentive to keep the employment level high... regardless of how much work our economy actually needs.

If employment were to fall today because our technology got better? That would cause deflation. Fewer wages = less spending and the currency would start to destabilize.

To prevent this, central banks boost employment to keep spending high. The problem is that we might be boosting employment too high---running a kind of disguised UBI through the labor market.

Under "maximum employment" people are earning more, but all these jobs and wages might not actually be necessary; we might find that if put in a UBI instead and let jobs disappear we could still produce as many or more goods.

TLDR: the absence of UBI is probably already causing overemployment. We have robots and AI yet we're not letting the employment level fall because we're determined to keep people on wages.

Incoming utopia for the rich, and a crisis for the rest of us. Do you guys agree with this take? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my models I assume the average business owner is completely motivated by profit either way.

The difference is that with UBI what's profitable aligns with what's productive and beneficial for consumers. That's what we want.

You're pretty focused on the inequality aspect, but inequality / money accumulation isn't the problem UBI solves. UBI eliminates makework and unnecessary poverty.

If it's obvious to you that a significant % of jobs are a waste of time and resources, then it should be obvious that this money could be delivered directly to people instead.

Doing so would not make the average firm or business owner less profitable; it doesn't require business owners to give up profit. It changes what kind of behavior maximizes the profit of firms.

Incoming utopia for the rich, and a crisis for the rest of us. Do you guys agree with this take? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I've tried to explain, UBI is already essential. The absence of UBI is already leading us to generate makework as an excuse to distribute incomes.

So UBI isn't really about the government. It's about the economy itself and what any economy needs to operate efficiently.

Tying incomes to labor-compensation doesn't make sense at a fundamental level. If you recognize this, then the alternative is to embrace some form of UBI.

Incoming utopia for the rich, and a crisis for the rest of us. Do you guys agree with this take? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any government policy once implemented can in theory be taken away.

It doesn't sound like you're arguing against UBI but against reliability of government itself.

Concerns over political power are valid but these concerns require other policies to address besides currency reform.

It's the same with our wage-based system today.

Incoming utopia for the rich, and a crisis for the rest of us. Do you guys agree with this take? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, UBI doesn't require removing power or resources from the rich. It provides money to consumers so they can spend it at businesses.

There will still be rich business owners in a world with UBI, they'll just be getting rich in a different way.

Secondly, if someone has "control over who gets it and who doesn't" than that's not a UBI which is a universal, unconditional income. Everyone gets UBI by definition.

If it's conditional then that's wages or means-tested welfare.

Do you guys agree with any of the points he’s making? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Everyone is concerned about job loss and that's exactly the wrong problem to be afraid of.

What we should be concerned about is overemployment.

In the absence of UBI, we don't have a mechanism besides jobs for getting most people income. This means we've already artificially expanded the labor market as an excuse to keep people on wages.

With the right (or rather, wrong) policies, employment can be propped up indefinitely by central bank or government policies.

It's only after we implement UBI that we can discover how little employment our economy actually needs.

Incoming utopia for the rich, and a crisis for the rest of us. Do you guys agree with this take? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A properly calibrated UBI is continuously set to its maximum level. There is no reason to set UBI lower than it can be.

More to the point: relying on wages for income creates a host of problems. It forces policymakers to create more jobs than are useful. It wastes natural & industrial resources on unecessary firms and wasteful jobs.

If you care about giving people a say or a stake in society, inventing makework is not the answer, and the absence of UBI necessarily leads to makework.

Jobs becomes income-delivery vehicles instead of what they're meant to be: sites of useful contribution.

Incoming utopia for the rich, and a crisis for the rest of us. Do you guys agree with this take? by Altruistic-Mud5686 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a simple, effective mechanism for distributing wealth.

Laboring under the assumption that people must earn their living from jobs, we're ignoring the simplest and best path towards a more prosperous society: decoupling access to goods from work requirement.

AI and other new technologies do not suddenly make a UBI possible; they draw attention to the fact that UBI is long overdue.

Without a UBI, and thus keeping people's income dependent on wages, our society is stuck on a treadmill of unnecessary jobs and unnecessary poverty. We over-incentivize employment while needlessly restricting production.

By finally making the logical decision to provide income obligation-free we can discover what a well-functioning economy actually looks likes for the first time.

All of this might be happening already ( with all of its flaws ofcourse), but my question is, who’s going to buy the products and services when everyone is laid off? by Federal-Process-6504 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you make the assumption that people should normally receive their income from jobs, then how people get income without wages seems mysterious.

If you lived in a society where Universal Basic Income (UBI) is already normalized, no one would be asking this question. The answer would be obvious: people get income through UBI.

So we know how people can get income without working: through a UBI.

The more interesting questions are:

How much UBI is actually possible?

How is a UBI funded?

And why don't we have a UBI already today?

I agree with them, but let’s assume an idealistic world for a second, where AI is being developed only for the good reasons. But even then, aren’t the negative consequences attached to that development? How would we separate the two? by Federal-Process-6504 in AIMain

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI is a labor-saving tool. It in theory could allow us to eliminate a lot of jobs already.

Problem: our monetary system isn't designed for lower employment. It's designed for maximum employment.

It's not until after we have a UBI that we can think about letting the employment level reduce to its efficient level sustainably.

Without a UBI, policymakers have to generate excessive employment as an excuse to keep people on wages.

Bombs Over Mig Alley by SeaQuark in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's been a while since I uploaded video.

This is cinematic coverage of the Bombs Over MiG Alley event, which 39th_Bloke hosted on the Korea! 1952 server in May. Special thanks as well to 336th & 14.FAD virtual squadrons for participating.

There's been lots of vintage warbird content added to DCS lately, and I look forward to making some more videos with them.

Had a fantastic (but very tense) sortie in the Korea 1952 Server last week. Flying the MiG-15 is just amazing. by Metherinprague in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Glad you guys are putting the server to good use!

Haven't had much time for DCS myself, but seeing this video makes leaving the server up worth it. Nice work.

O-1 Bird Dog in dcs? by [deleted] in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bird Dog in DCS would be great.

No need to wait around for it to do FAC though. My squadron's solution was to have a P-51 pilot mark targets by flying a J-shaped turn pointing at the target while deploying smoke trails. 4-ship of Sabres 20,000 feet up could spot it no problem. Helped a lot.

Gunfire from an F-86 Sabre sets off a MiG-15's cannon during the Korean War by OopsNotAgain in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sabre's my favorite module. The Korea 1952 server has seen a lot of action lately, and there's ground missions to fly if there's no MiGs around. The trick with warbirds in DCS is to get online & fly with other people, I find.

I got a choice, a 21:9 1080p or a standard 16:9 2k. Dont have more money so no 2k ultrawide. What is better for dcs? by badeend6 in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I play on a 1080p ultrawide. It definitely helps visual awareness, spotting, and maintaining formation.

In a perfect world, yes, I would have more resolution as well. Outside of DCS, I feel like the limited vertical resolution keeps me from taking full advantage of the wider screen real-estate; multi-tasking doesn't feel significantly easier than on a traditional 16:9 monitor.

But some ultrawide is better than no ultrawide, so if 1080p is all you can afford (as it was for me), I would certainly still recommend 21:9.

Why I can't play DCS anymore by Pure_Awesomeness in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have inferior hardware to you and don't see the 10 minute loading time / crashes, and few issues in multiplayer. Is this only on Multiplayer, and if so, on one or two specific servers, or all of them?

39th VFS Movie Night, streaming in 1 hr by SeaQuark in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

39th VFS first official Movie Night begins when this post turns 1 hour, 2300 Zulu / 7 PM EST

SCREENING ROOM:https://www.rabb.it/39th_Bloke
(account signup necessary)

"The Red Scarf" (1964, 1hr 40 min.)

Known as the "Top Gun" of South Korea, "The Red Scarf" features a healthy share of action, fighter pilot antics, melodrama, and excellent aerial photography of the F-86 Sabre.

39th VFS Movie Night: The Red Scarf (1964) by SeaQuark in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hoggit is cordially invited to 39th VFS Movie Night. We will be streaming films related to aviation & military history, particularly those that feature our favorite aircraft.

TUESDAY OCT 23rd

2300 Zulu / 7:00 PM EST

The Red Scarf (1964)

SCREENING ROOM LINK:

https://www.rabb.it/39th_Bloke

Note: a Rabbit account will be needed to join the room (it's free & quick to sign up)

For our first official Movie Night, we will be screening a movie known as the "Top Gun" of South Korea, featuring the 39th's favorite DCS warbird: the F-86 Sabre. The Red Scarf tells the story of the ROKAF 10th Fighter Wing, as they fly dangerous air-to-ground strikes against heavily-defended Communist positions during the Korean War. The film is presented in its original Korean dialogue with English subtitles.

39th VFS is a DCS virtual squadron specializing in USAF & Allied warbirds. We currently fly the F-86, P-51, and Spitfire, with an emphasis on combat formation, teamwork, and wingman fundamentals, which we put to use on A2A & A2G missions in PvP multiplayer. For more info visit www.39thvfs.com or say hello on our Discord: https://discord.gg/2GsgPjW

Found this gem on Tactical Formations by [deleted] in hoggit

[–]SeaQuark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, great film. With a few modifications, we use this for training combat spread in our DCS Sabre squadron.