"Climate change would be a top priority if it weren't for technological progress. However, because technological advances will likely help us to either mitigate the harms from climate change or will create much bigger problems on their own, we probably shouldn't prioritize climate change too much."
I think this attitude deserves a name: technocrastinating.
Technological progress has been happening for a while. At some point, this argument will stop making sense and we must admit that no, this (climate change, fertility, whatever) is not fine, stop technocrastinating and actually do something. That time might be right now, and the best time already past.
The article you link begins by bluntly saying, "Universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status." Yes! That is what UBI is! It continues, "UBI remains largely theoretical and, thus, does not have much of a history." Yes! That is also true!
Various partial versions have been tried to a limited extent. But the Blattman et al paper the article cites does not claim to have anything to do with UBI. Neither "UBI" nor "universal" occur anywhere in that paper, and the welfare scheme it studies is nothing like UBI. The reference is irrelevant to the encyclopedia article, which has no business calling it "Uganda’s UBI trial".
Have Encyclopedia Britannica sunk so low as to use chatbots to write for them? Eheu!
This is not about what UBI "means to me", but about what the basic idea is that everyone but you calls "UBI". The basic idea is to sweep away all of the various special-case means-tested benefits that require armies of staff to implement, and replace them by a single one that is paid to everyone. Are you alive? Are you a citizen? Then you get the UBI. That's it. That is the fundamental idea.
You can advocate for different welfare systems involving means tests and training vouchers and food stamps and businesses lobbying for this and that, but you don't get to call that a "redefinition" of UBI, any more than you can redefine "blue" to mean the colour of bananas or "France" to mean Australia.
"I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
— Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord (source)
This should be at the author’s discretion. Notify them when a shortform qualifies, add the option to the triple-dot menu, and provide a place for the author to add a title.
No AI titles. If the author wrote the content, they can write the title. If they didn’t, they can ask an AI themselves.
If you SEE a coin flip come up heads (and examine the coin and perform whatever tests you like), what's your posterior probability that the coin actually exists and it wasn't a false memory or trick in some way?
Not enough to make any practical difference to any decision I am going to make. Only when I see the extraordinary evidence required to support an extraordinary hypothesis will it be raised to my attention.
The key is recognizing that the preference itself is completely independent from rationality or intelligence.
The orthogonality thesis is also for human beings.
We are the mouse fearing the cat of AGI, but everything we are doing teaches the kittens how to catch mice.
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.
“I rather like bad wine; one gets so bored with good wine.”
— Disraeli