RE: “something ChatGPT might right”, sorry for the error. I wrote the comment quickly, as otherwise I wouldn’t have written it at all.
Using ChatGPT to improve your writing is fine. I just want you to be aware that there’s an aversion to its style here.
Kennaway was quoting what I said, probably so he could make his reply more precise.
I didn’t down-vote your post, for what it’s worth.
There’s a LW norm, which seems to hold less force in recent years, for people to explain why they downvote something. I thought it would’ve been dispiriting to get negative feedback with no explanation, so I figured I’d explain in place of the people who downvoted you.
I don’t understand why businesses would be co-financing UBI instead of some government tax. Nor do I get why it would be desirable or even feasible, given the co-ordination issues.
If companies get to make UBI conditional on people learning certain things, then it’s not a UBI. Instead, it’s a peculiar sort of training program.
I’m unfamiliar with LessWrong, have difficulty to recognize who wrote what. If I mistake someone for someone else, I can only say sorry.
Yes, the comments are discouraging, but that’s OK. If I was really interested so much in UBI that I would spend days or even weeks to study the literature to get the definition right, I would stay in the discussion regardless what others say or how many downvotes I get. But I’m not. When returning after months to check why this article was perceived so negatively, I realize I can’t even read through the whole article without checking other things I’m currently doing, so I deleted it.
As much as I know, UBI isn’t a real policy yet, it’s not yet determined how much UBI everyone should get, whether it’s paid out in dollars or vouchers for training programs or other things, whether the amount everyone gets should depend on their personal effort etc.
As I just said in another comment, that is not what the term “UBI” was coined to mean. Everyone gets it, unconditionally. It’s paid out in money, not coupons reserved for a particular use. No-one is required to do anything on account of receiving it.
If you want to talk about other welfare schemes that do not work like that, go ahead, but don’t call them UBI.
RE: “something ChatGPT might right”, sorry for the error. I wrote the comment quickly, as otherwise I wouldn’t have written it at all.
Using ChatGPT to improve your writing is fine. I just want you to be aware that there’s an aversion to its style here.
Kennaway was quoting what I said, probably so he could make his reply more precise.
I didn’t down-vote your post, for what it’s worth.
There’s a LW norm, which seems to hold less force in recent years, for people to explain why they downvote something. I thought it would’ve been dispiriting to get negative feedback with no explanation, so I figured I’d explain in place of the people who downvoted you.
I don’t understand why businesses would be co-financing UBI instead of some government tax. Nor do I get why it would be desirable or even feasible, given the co-ordination issues.
If companies get to make UBI conditional on people learning certain things, then it’s not a UBI. Instead, it’s a peculiar sort of training program.
What does economic recovery have to do with UBI?
Thank you for the explanation.
I’m unfamiliar with LessWrong, have difficulty to recognize who wrote what. If I mistake someone for someone else, I can only say sorry.
Yes, the comments are discouraging, but that’s OK. If I was really interested so much in UBI that I would spend days or even weeks to study the literature to get the definition right, I would stay in the discussion regardless what others say or how many downvotes I get. But I’m not. When returning after months to check why this article was perceived so negatively, I realize I can’t even read through the whole article without checking other things I’m currently doing, so I deleted it.
As I just said in another comment, that is not what the term “UBI” was coined to mean. Everyone gets it, unconditionally. It’s paid out in money, not coupons reserved for a particular use. No-one is required to do anything on account of receiving it.
If you want to talk about other welfare schemes that do not work like that, go ahead, but don’t call them UBI.