Not that this invalidates anything this person was saying, but for what it's worth, I thought their writing style was extremely suspicious so I ran their first reply through Pangram, and it was flagged as 100% written by AI with high confidence. Perhaps that why the dialogue appeared so productive.
Once you remove the regulation that artificially inflate the cost of necessities, poverty really ceases to be much of an issue. Most of the people who would remain poor would just be extremely irresponsible, and giving them UBI is no help at all.
Does it really matter if this person was using AI? My sons are engineers and use high powered calculators and design software—Should we markdown every person who uses some form of technology?
The point is that if AI gets a person to understand the actual economics of a particular policy that’s a net positive (especially if that person is an elected official). Knowledge is power—it’s not cheating.
" I want you to tell me where my plan stops being libertarian.
I've been developing a comprehensive policy framework for a libertarian president whose sole objective is maximizing well-being for the bottom 50th percentile of Americans."
There. Stop right there. No libertarian believes the government's job is to maximize anything in society, no matter how noble the intentions his road is paved with, and if he thinks that responsibility lies solely with the President, he doesn't understand the Constitution either.
And even aside from that, what is this, some kind of Veil of Ignorance test? Does he think maximizing anything for half the population won't affect the other half? What is his definition of "well-being" and how does he measure it?
No point in reading any further. His plan begins with four useless assumptions in its first sentence.
I suspect what happened is that the person you were talking to discussed your answer with an AI and got the AI to write the responses.
That said, the actual content of the discussion is indeed productive. Perhaps running everything through am AI is helpful for some people to parse information. Still, it would have been nice if he wrote the responses in his own words.
Honestly, this sounds like just a design issue. If the person had instead thought about doing a negative income tax, it would become way cheaper while still allowing for a comparatively generous benefit and I’m pretty sure most people considered a negative income tax basically equivalent to a universal basic income, at least from personal experience with people who genuinely think they are obviously the same policy with different implementation
Not that this invalidates anything this person was saying, but for what it's worth, I thought their writing style was extremely suspicious so I ran their first reply through Pangram, and it was flagged as 100% written by AI with high confidence. Perhaps that why the dialogue appeared so productive.
Yes, all the responses appear to be 100% AI generated based on tone and concessions. Sounds like Claude to me
I found those numbers interesting but this feels like reading someone’s gpt chat (pretty sure every response is 100% ai generated)
"maximizing well-being for the bottom 50th percentile of Americans." May be a laudable goal, but not libertarian.
Once you remove the regulation that artificially inflate the cost of necessities, poverty really ceases to be much of an issue. Most of the people who would remain poor would just be extremely irresponsible, and giving them UBI is no help at all.
Did Bryan email back and forth with someone who was using chat or did he just share a chatgpt thread with us and make up the "lawyer"?
This is manifestly AI-generated. Immediate mea-culpa. "It's not an X. It's a Y that Z."
Did anyone change their mind about the proposal after realizing AI might have been involved?
Does it really matter if this person was using AI? My sons are engineers and use high powered calculators and design software—Should we markdown every person who uses some form of technology?
The point is that if AI gets a person to understand the actual economics of a particular policy that’s a net positive (especially if that person is an elected official). Knowledge is power—it’s not cheating.
The interlocutor either was an LLM, or the person heavily used an LLM in crafting the responses.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of that. I mean, it is a tool...
" I want you to tell me where my plan stops being libertarian.
I've been developing a comprehensive policy framework for a libertarian president whose sole objective is maximizing well-being for the bottom 50th percentile of Americans."
There. Stop right there. No libertarian believes the government's job is to maximize anything in society, no matter how noble the intentions his road is paved with, and if he thinks that responsibility lies solely with the President, he doesn't understand the Constitution either.
And even aside from that, what is this, some kind of Veil of Ignorance test? Does he think maximizing anything for half the population won't affect the other half? What is his definition of "well-being" and how does he measure it?
No point in reading any further. His plan begins with four useless assumptions in its first sentence.
If people took criticism based on logic and changed their minds, there wouldn't be liberals at all.
There also wouldn't be libertarians who thought we should have uncontrolled borders, incidentally.
I suspect what happened is that the person you were talking to discussed your answer with an AI and got the AI to write the responses.
That said, the actual content of the discussion is indeed productive. Perhaps running everything through am AI is helpful for some people to parse information. Still, it would have been nice if he wrote the responses in his own words.
Loved this exchange. You changed his mind with the facts of the numbers. Great job.
Honestly, this sounds like just a design issue. If the person had instead thought about doing a negative income tax, it would become way cheaper while still allowing for a comparatively generous benefit and I’m pretty sure most people considered a negative income tax basically equivalent to a universal basic income, at least from personal experience with people who genuinely think they are obviously the same policy with different implementation