Why Are We Afraid of AI?

 

Why are we afraid of AI (artificial intelligence)? AI is a tool that we have created, for the purpose of serving our needs, and therefore it would seem that it should be good for us, should enable us to accomplish something that we currently cannot do.

The problem is that AI is going to enable an even greater surveillance over every aspect of our lives, and apparently make decisions based on the information it gathers, in accordance with the law. Is it so scary that we should become a nation that follows the law?

A human has capacities that AI does not have, and should AI develop some of these higher qualities then there should not be an issue. The question becomes, do we have confidence that we are still going to be able to live according to our higher qualities, or do we seem to feel AI is going to dominate?

And when we look at it from this perspective, we seem to be right to worry, because we see people’s lives all around us being destroyed by the unfeeling, mechanical application of the law, both administrative and criminal. If we’ve already lost the capacity of human judgment, the capacity to consider people’s motivations, needs and history, then there can be little expectation that AI will exceed us in this respect. There can be no justice without heart, and humans are the ones with the heart.

Not only do we see a criminal justice system that regularly sentences juvenile offenders to life in prison, handing down similarly highly excessive sentences to all as a matter of course, but we see our social safety networks cutting off the indigent and the poor due to bureaucratic realities, with no recognition of their actual need. We see insurance companies freely refusing care to those who may well die without the necessary treatments, in order to make profits.

We have become inured to the reality of a government that has allowed the development of an economic system that shovels wealth from the poor and the middle class up to the already wealthy shareholder class. A powerless government is not very comforting as we confront a future with AI. In the balance between government and corporation, the corporation has won. Financial capitalism, shareholder capitalism, corporate capitalism have used our collective ostrich-like tendencies in giving us just enough to keep quiet, to move us into domination by the profit motive. Our billionaire class, primarily male, has won.

Until now. The power released into society by ‘Me Too’ has been greatly underestimated. The rise of the black woman in politics, ready and ably positioned to take on the rich and powerful, changes everything. The social activism emerging from every corner of society, whether on the streets, in coffee shops or institutions quietly designing new paradigms, is ready to join forces and initiate a new era.

The universe itself has intervened and made it clear that the earth will not accept any more abuse, the corporate go-to method of extracting profit. The Christian Nationalists  (like Mike Johnson, our new Republican Speaker of the House) currently trying to convince us that Christianity is on their side, having resorted to rejecting Jesus’ actual teaching on the basis of its being too weak, have failed to reach the masses. We know deep down that Jesus was right, we need love and acceptance and universal empowerment, not domination by the wealthy and privileged.

An Economic System That Works For All

 

A Proposal for an Economic System That Works for All

Let’s consider a reasonable income today of about $60,000, with the government taking about $12,000 of this in the form of taxes of one sort or another. (The average personal income in the United States is $63,214, with the median income across the country being $44,225, according to the World Population Review.)

The proposal is that everyone should receive $1,000 a month in the form of an unconditional basic income (UBI); everyone should then be guaranteed to receive another $1,000 a month for working 10 hours each week, which works out at $25 per hour. After this, people are on their own, as they are today, to make up whatever more they desire and can achieve.

Clearly this needs some explanation and justification, and suggestions as to how to fund it.

 

Unconditional Basic Income (UBI)

Nature and the planet pre-existed any person, and therefore cannot be considered to be a commodity simply for economic exploitation. Nature makes everything freely available to all on an equal basis. Given our emphasis in the Constitution on private property, including ownership of land, much that was freely available is now in private hands. However, the basic human right still exists, and therefore the UBI of $1,000 expresses this right of access to nature, within the system that we have developed.

This should rightfully be funded via a land-value tax, or nature value tax, which recognizes the community as the actual source of the increase in value of the land, and therefore modifies the right to private ownership of nature. An alternative would be to divide all the land into 335 million small parcels of equal value and distribute them amongst the population. This is not possible! A land value tax ensures that the landlord does not automatically reap all the investment of the community into his or her own hands, as happens in our current system.

Another source of funding for a UBI would be for the central bank to issue money directly into everyone’s bank account instead of lending it into circulation via the banks, who then lend it out to corporations and others. A system based on lending is unsustainable, as is obvious today. This idea would need much more research, but it is out there.

 

Guaranteed Community Income (GCI)

If all our needs could be met simply through what the planet supplies, then we should just share it all out and that’s all we need to do. But of course that doesn’t take into account fundamental human nature, which includes the drive for self-improvement, self-expression and creative achievement. Not to mention that Planet Earth doesn’t come with pre-existing houses, clothing, etc. which make up our basic needs for survival. We cannot expect that these should be provided for us by other people, without any effort or input on our part.

Today there is no guarantee of a job, and millions are living with no source of income, other than handouts from the government, sometimes not even that. It is only reasonable that if people have to have money to live, then everyone must be guaranteed a source of such income, enough for at least survival at a minimal standard of living. Therefore it makes sense that everyone should participate in the  responsibility to form the planet and its resources into livable form, to ensure the basic necessities of survival for all.

However, while we may accept this much responsibility, few would feel they have to accept responsibility to make the ultrawealthy even wealthier, which is the case today for millions of workers. This second $1,000 then should express the basic needs of community, such as maintaining houses, planting and harvesting vegetables and fruits for the community, raising and educating children, working in local hospitals or schools etc.

This should probably be funded or administrated on the community level, rather than from the federal or state governments, since once bureaucracy is involved everything becomes more complex and money gets lost to administration. If every person gets a year or so of training in a trade or a skill as part of their high school experience, then they can be a relatively low-cost source of needed labor for their community residents. Those who want to pay more and have a more professional job performed will employ professionals still of course. Hospitals, medical clinics, schools etc. can pay for the labor they receive on this basis.

Most people will probably prefer to work in a traditional corporate or small business setting generally speaking, but the availability of community work would allow people to take time off their job, to take time to raise small children, and just to live on a simple level if they prefer to do so. The income can be supplemented with part time work as needed or desired. It does not allow for people to get rich, but it provides a base for everyone which is simply lacking today.

The availability of such community work can eliminate the need for much of our welfare system, which is suffocating our nation.

 

Traditional Employment and Corporations

Those who are happy in their current form of employment will choose to continue with that. Many people make enough money to compensate for the long hours and other stresses that they experience at work. However, there are many systemic problems within our corporation-based economy.

·       Monopolies need to be broken up

·       We need to stop rent-seeking in all its forms

·       Reinstate the rewards for productivity rather than for finance capitalism

·       Limit the wealth accumulation that created huge inequality

·       Remove the responsibility for healthcare from corporations

If a corporation can make profit without resorting to unfair practices, and greed can be limited, then capitalism can be restored to its original intended form, and we can move into a much better distribution of wealth.