The concept of 'learning income' was introduced somewhat abruptly. Could you please provide some further explanation?

I think we should encourage all forms of learning, including watching YouTube videos and playing educational games. Because the competitor of 'the opportunity to learn' is 'a comfortable and attractive world that can be explained by the beliefs one already holds,' learning must also be presented in a very approachable form.

To do this, the most effective approach is providing supplementary funding for those opportunities. YouTube's algorithm has been trained to maximize political polarization and filter bubbles because the platform, content creators, and media consumers all share the motive of 'showing users what they want' and their financial interests align. To overcome this strongly converged outcome, I think financial support for 'good content' is more effective than regulation.

The problem of job loss caused by AI also seems likely to become visible soon. Rather than regulating technology to artificially preserve jobs, I think it is important to quickly propose alternatives for distributing resources.

I think learning income should be distributed to all of the following: 'the platform that mediated the learning and provided data to prove that learning occurred,' 'the individual who carried out the learning,' and 'the person who created the content that prompted the learning.' Through this, we should be able to sustain our lives even as we increasingly invest time in learning rather than labor.

Since technology is not yet able to support it, learning income at the level I have argued for is not yet possible. However, I think it could be introduced in a moderated form, since there are similar concepts such as learning voucher policies and scholarship systems.