care whether they put almost everyone out of work? Talk of a UBI is just misdirection while they continue to steal whatever they can and vie against one another for the most wealth and power.
If you want to know how fair they'll be, look at their refusal to stop stealing intellectual property, and to compensate those whose IP they've already stolen.
Years ago Sam Altman of OpenAI occasionally talked about a UBI, but he told the journalist who interviewed him for a New Yorker profile that he thought a UBI could be as cheap as several thousand dollars a year for a family of four - not counting the cost of housing. Part of the interview was conducted at a Silicon Valley mansion, which might have had something to do with him not wanting to talk about how people who lost their jobs to AI would be housed.
But he had explanations for the rest. In Sam Altman's imaginary future where people survive on a tiny UBI, we'll have fusion, so power will be free. And free power will mean food will be free (Sam didn't explain exactly how that worked). And people will get any education they need from their smartphones (because, after all, kids staring at smartphones works so well for education).
And it was obvious that his figuring this out left him feeling comfortable with his plans to acquire more and more wealth for himself, and multiple homes including one prepped for the possibility that either robots or other people might go after him.
The tech lords are not planning to share with anyone except other tech lords. No matter how much they steal, or what damage they'll do to the economy. They're already trying to get the government to become responsible for any failures when the AI bubble bursts. The government and the taxpayers whose jobs they want to automate away, and whose intellectual property they want to steal if they haven't already stolen it.
= new reply since forum marked as read