I finally wrote specifically about #ChatGPT and how I feel it has already impacted my own income security. Time is quickly running out to get #BasicIncome in place as an A.I. dividend before income insecurity worsens quickly across all of society.
https://www.scottsantens.com/chatgpt-has-already-decreased-my-income-security/
I think you are asking the right question, linking UBI to AI concerns. After all, when we outsourced physical labour to the steam engine, we were still employable as knowledge workers. But what is left once we outsource that too?
Although, when I read your article, I noticed you saw three strategies for the future: quantity (content mills), community (subscribers), and manipulation (outrage-baiting). I am curious that you did not mention "quality" as another option.
I understand the dystopian perspective that quality only matters if it can be heard, but for academia (the topic that I am engaged in, with the #SentientSyllabus project) quality is really the only option: to understand how the human perspective can go beyond the AI, _and_ for society to understand how that creates value.
A win-win proposition requires both: creating quality on the creatives' side, and encouraging culture on the recipients' side, a culture through which individuals recognize and values what is being produced as an enrichment of their own lives. This is nothing other than the ideal of education.
When I imagine how this could translate into perspectives for the content-writing economy, I realize that we share many concerns. And conversely, the community-building angle you mentioned is something we may be paying too little attention to (It is implicit in the "shared commitments" I describe in my analysis of academic misconduct - but making such communities explicit may be productive. https://sentientsyllabus.substack.com/p/generated-misconduct )
More to think about. Thank you.
