You don't know the first thing about OP, other than that he's trying to help out his dad.
Maybe his father didn't want to worry his family, and had been keeping it to himself. I have no idea, and neither do you; you just chose to assume the worst about someone you don't know.
I did no such thing. My assumption was that OP, like most of us, dedicates most of his life to work. That's not a character judgment and it's not "the worst". It's normal.
In the absence of work he was able to help his dad, presumeably because he had more time. The "sad" part isn't OP, it's the fact that work demands so much.
Harris got a ton of votes despite being unelected (remember she didn't win a primary) and unpopular. This woman excuse is a cope and borderline sexist. Look how many women won their races yesterday.
> I was thinking that everyone would suddenly become a "truck driver" overnight, just so they can sign up for the free money.
The U in UBI stands for universal. That means that former truck drivers (aka the unemployed) get it but also everyone else to include CEOs making millions. The expectation is that those with other income will give back their UBI and then some via taxes.
This is better than policies that create stupid incentives like in your example.
I think these small scale experiments have value, and that its part of the process of adapting to our environment.
What I can say with absolute confidence is, the post Bretton-Woods financial system promoted by my government, the only one I know, has increased wealth inequality spectacularly, and I expect any changes to the system to continue this trend.
And thats why I want to grow onions. I can eat them. They keep vampires away.
I don't have a problem with UBI either, but my point was that if it's not universal, it's not UBI. It's targeted welfare. And imo this is a bad idea because:
1) it creates dumb incentives
2) it gives the govt more levers they can pull, which leads to more corruption and worse outcomes
The problem is not that people aren't doing work, it's that everything starts to look and feel the same.
With code, that doesn't matter so much. We are using it to achieve real-world objectives. The creativity of the programmer is rarely at issue -- from the user's perspective, a programmer is more akin to a plumber or an electrician. What matters is the result, not the creativity of the code.
But it does matter when part of the point of an in-person event is to see and appreciate someone else's creativity and skill. There is a real difference when that creativity and artisanship is replaced with AI output.
If I want to see AI art, I can prompt a model all day long and see whatever art I want, customized to my preferences. It's freely available and easy to get, so it doesn't have a lot of value.
> How about we let this part time business focus on entertaining it's visitors rather than wasting time virtue signaling to hypocrites.
What do you think "virtue signaling" means?
Did you read the article and understand the author's dislike, or did you just come here to whine that if I think AI is a bad choice in one context, I can never complain about it in any context? I assume you're aware that is a trivially silly and childish position.
The context here is the same: using AI to optimize a job or task.
And yes, I read it and I stand by what I said. From TFA:
When I go to a new restaurant and see an AI-generated menu, I’m disappointed. When I see an AI-generated flyer for an event, I’m annoyed and much less likely to go.
To me this is silly. The event is the draw, not the way the flyer was created or the amount of effort that went in to it.
Nice story but also kindof sad you didn't have time for this while you were working. Good example of what can happen if we don't work so much.
reply