You have repeatedly mentioned the social safety net that could support an individual's acceptance. Are you advocating for a basic income?

Only half right. This is going to get very long, but first I am assuming that once AI passes the singularity and jobs decline, a 'financial redistribution by the state' will become unavoidable. For the basis of that redistribution, I argue for 'learning income.'

The reason is this: if resources are distributed only in the form of basic income, individuals in society will have no motivation to escape the sweet swamp of a narrow world, filled with information that merely confirms their existing beliefs, and so the capacity for democratic decision-making will collapse. And I said I wanted 'a society that still gives people the belief that humans can change society.' That is why democracy must be defended.

To do this, 'the capacity of members of society' must be developed. Human decision-making must be inefficient compared to AI only 'to a manageable degree,' and only then can human decision-making authority be protected. A state where incapable private citizens are forced to defend democracy will be conquered by force by a state that has handed all decisions over to the market and capital. Therefore, strengthening citizens' capacities will become a very important national task, and I believe that this should be financially supported, with funds paid out 'when learning takes place.' And though it is a bit of TMI, the reason I chose to pursue a doctorate in learning sciences is to develop 'a quantitative definition and measurement method of knowledge' that will serve as the basis for that policy.

The reason I said at first that I was only half right is that this policy will, in the end, financially reward only 'the act of acquiring knowledge that society deems right.' So some basic income is still needed, so that it can take on the role that art has traditionally played in practice: sharply presenting values that society does not encourage. A society whose thinking is not fluid will rot, just as stagnant water rots.

So my position on basic income can be summarized as: 'Most resources should be distributed through learning income, but a minimal basic income is still necessary.' Given my sense of crisis about democracy as it stands, I want to argue that the state should provide only a minimal amount that can barely sustain livelihoods, and that people should have to learn in order to obtain even a small amount of luxury.