Not really. "A runny nose, a fever, body aches" "What are symptoms of flu the with 75% accuracy?"
That's dumbed down of course. It's probably more like "This much of this enzyme concentration in blood, that thing in urine"
"What is a 17% chance of developing some condition in the next 5 years?"
With regard to the mechanics of the "Snowball Effect", my understanding is that the flat tax on capital gains vs the progressive tax on income is one cause in the US.
I would speculate that one other mechanic has to do with time. For the vast majority of people there is a hard cap on wage income based on the hours they can possibly work in a day. People who have money to invest can put that to work for them offline, so to speak.
And at a certain threshhold a person can put their money to use to pay for specialized labor (tax attorneys, finance managers etc) to receive an even greater return.
I agree with you on the immigration front as well. And I agree that it is probably true that immigration reform/BI will not succeed on rational grounds. It seems to me that marketing/emotional appeals have the most effect on political/social systems.
When I discuss these topics, I always attempt to make a valid argument (the conclusion follows from the premises), and try to change the discussion to the truth of the premises. Everyone wants to debate the conclusion without looking at the actual premises/validity of the argument.
I appreciate a devil's advocate because it forces me to clarify my own thinking, which hopefully helps me clarify it to others.
Incidentally, I'm not sure we are really heading for a post-scarcity economy. That seems the weakest part of the argument to me. Or at least the toughest part to demonstrate conclusively. So, i think there are rational reasons to be against BI as well.
You parent's argument is poorly stated if the desire is to appeal to conservatives. Indeed, many people will object for the reason you stated.
There are a few premises that must be established to make a case for BI.
1. We are approaching a post-scarcity economy.
2. In a post-scarcity economy, many people will lose the ability to support themselves\their families, as whole industries are automated.
3. In the case of massive unemployment, consumption will drop dramatically.
4. Drastic drops in consumption will devastate the economy. This will be bad for everyone. Less wealth, less progress, less investment.
5. Therefore, to maintain economic growth/stability in a post-scarcity economy, we should provide a basic income.
That's the best argument I can formulate. It really has nothing to do with having fun and not being forced to do menial work. Those are fringe benefits.
I don't think your or your parent's view on Notch is at all fair or justified. His situation is much different from Musk's. Notch accidentially made a huge sum of money, and now he is weary of the attention it has brought. The fact that he said he would abandon a projects that showed promise, I take as an expression of burnout/emotional stress. He is much younger than Musk, and his success was rather abrupt.
Who knows what he may use his position for in the future? He seems to me an intelligent, honest, passionate person. Maybe he will enjoy a quiet retirement. Maybe he will go on to do incredibe things in other arenas after taking some time to step back. A little empathy is in order, in my opinion.
Years ago, for a period of about 3 months, 2 friends and I would get together after work and play an XBOX fighting game for 4-5 hours (We had literally nothing else to do. No money, no cable, just this one game). Winner plays again and loser waits his turn.
Everyone's style and character picks would constantly evolve during this process. But generally, one friend would lose far more than he would win, and we would tease him mercilessly, as you do.
One day, out of nowhere, he was unbeatable. Winning game after game, to all of our amazement.
My other friend, who I don't think graduated high school and almost certainly never read anything about sleep science or brain development, made the following comment, which struck me as profound at the time:
"JP was dreaming this shit last light. No doubt, dreaming it all night"
Another example of sub/unconscious learning happens in sports. Another pastime of mine is playing pickup basketball.
One of the best ways to get into a hot shooters head is to simply say "You're shooting really well today. What are you doing differently?" the same applies to things like a golf swing.
So it seems to me that philosophers and computer scientists share some key behaviors.
Based on your own theory of shared behavior, computer scientists are philosophers.
Therefore, quite a bit of philosophy was required for google search.