In early 2019, Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang rose to prominence in large part behind the concept of UBI(Universal Basic Income). Giving every adult $1,000 per month to provide for their necessities, and hopefully, keep them safe and off the street. Political beliefs aside, UBI hit home with many people. Yang saw his numbers in polls go from as low as 1% to as high as 16% in national polls.
While I hold no ill belief towards UBI, something that bothered me was Yang's reasoning for UBI; the notion that UBI is a "pledge to protect Americans from automation and Artificial Intelligence." Dissecting the statement that Yang mad during a 2019 speech, we can see that the notion that Americans need to be "protected" from AI and automation immediately implies that Americans will soon be victimized and harmed by the presence of emerging technology. Harmed in the form of job loss, being put out of business, and financial struggle.
While the ladder statement may in fact be correct, it is possible to be correct while being incomplete, and more specifically, when discussing ethics it is especially important not to leave out key details that could cause listeners to fall for a red herring fallacy. Yang's statement above and his reasoning for UBI was a textbook example of a red herring fallacy.
AI and automation have the potential to increase the public's health, safety, and general quality of life like very few things in history. Yes, it is possible that certain people may lose their jobs to automation, but let's keep in mind that in the 19th century, nearly 70% of Americans worked on and/or did business with farms as a way to make their living. Fast forward to 2020 and that number is around 2%, yet we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in history. When times change, humans adapt. It's literally a proven scientific principle. Yes, AI may destroy certain job fields, however, it is going to create an enormous amount of new jobs and opportunity for Americans to prosper. When talking about the greater good for a nation moving forward, some people may lose their jobs, but that may be necessary in order to ensure that the greater public is healthier, safer, and living a higher quality of life than ever before.
Hi Chrisboi! I thought your point about the reasoning behind Andrew Yang's proposed UBI was really interesting, I hadn't thought about it too much before. I thought that your article could benefit from a picture of Andrew Yang for whose who don't know him, and maybe a slightly more relevant title, but other than that I think you did a really solid job.
ReplyDeleteThe potential for AI to take jobs is a hot topic right now, and while I agree with the point that humans can adapt, I don’t really agree with the argument that since we adapted before, there would be no chance of danger in the future. I think it would be good to explain more about the fields that would benefit from automation, instead of seeming dismissive with the “it’s literally a proven scientific principle” statement. I also think a better title could be used here which relates more to automation.
ReplyDelete