joe (c) on freedom ness

joe corbett on free dom ness

via michel bauwens tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2109850151275860081?s=20]:

* What comes after labor?

https://holo.substack.com/p/freedom-in-the-post-work-world?

“*If artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence advance to the point of performing most economically valued labor—cognitive, creative, logistical, and physical—the existing link between work and livelihood will break, transforming the nature of work for humankind. In that condition, a universal basic income (UBI) or equivalent **system of unconditional provision becomes not merely desirable but structurally necessary. Without ***some form of de-linked income, mass unemployment or underemployment ****would produce social collapse. Yet necessity need not equal dystopia. The same technological rupture that threatens to render human labor superfluous *****could also free large numbers of people from compulsory work, ******opening space for the cultivation of distinctive interests, creativity, care, learning, and contemplation. Whether this possibility is realized, or whether it curdles into new forms of control, profit seeking, and meaninglessness, *******depends on political choices, cultural preparation.”

rather.. *if we try tech for something legit diff.. something we can’t seem to do.. **that unconditional ness humanity craves.. ie: nonjudgmental expo labeling..

rather.. ***decomposed income.. aka: sans any form of m\a\p

****would produce? we’ve had ‘social collapse’ since forever.. hari present in society law et al.. via khan filling the gaps law from missing pieces et al

*****the dance won’t dance unless/until it’s 1\ all of us 2\ legit free

findings (aka: the things i can’t unsee) from on the ground ness deep dive and why we need tech w/o judgment

nothing to date (ever since that day) has gotten to that root of problem

******legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

rather.. *******the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us.. as is thinking we need to prep and train

actually depends on if we let go. enough to try the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance

ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. perpetuating survival triage.. for (blank)’s sake..

– Joe Corbett

and michel ‘s reply tweet with same substack link [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2109850685588320515?s=20]:

A further excerpt on Labor after AI:

https://holo.substack.com/p/freedom-in-the-post-work-world?

Joe Corbett:

“*Education would need to shift from preparing people for roles that no longer exist toward cultivating the capacity for self-directed inquiry, aesthetic discrimination, scientific curiosity, and critical civic judgment. Local and digital commons could provide access to AI tools themselves, so that the means of creation are not monopolized, and thus the means of **AI itself (the medium) becomes the message of educational meaning and purpose shaping human life. Governance of advanced AI would have to treat it, at least in part, as a public utility whose gains are broadly shared rather than as pure private property. Under these conditions, ***freedom from compulsory work could become freedom for the development of idiosyncratic talents, deep relationships, ecological restoration, philosophical and scientific exploration, and the recovery of attention from the machinery of perpetual economic pressure. A true socio-cultural neo-Renaissance. But the ****choice must be made to make this a deliberate outcome. It will not happen on its own.

rather *Ed would need to let go of any form of m\a\p.. and literally ‘draw forth from within’.. ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)

**meaning/purpose shaping life are cancerous distractions perpeptuating same song

***what we need is ‘development’ aka: unconditional part of idiosyncratic jargon as global detox/reset.. again.. this is why we need tech w/o judgment.. tech as it could be.. tie: need means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening – so we can hear what’s already on each heart as global detox in order to org around legit needs

****again.. finite set of choices is killing us.. keeping us from us.. let’s try something legit diff..

What Must Be Avoided:

The dystopian alternatives to a neo-Renaissance are equally plausible and must be actively resisted. *One danger is conditional or surveilled income: **UBI systems that monitor behavior, punish “unproductive” uses of time, or integrate with social credit mechanisms would transform a potential instrument of freedom into a new apparatus of control. Another is extreme concentration of AI ownership, producing a small techno-elite and a dependent majority whose material security is real but whose agency and political power are negligible. ***A third danger is the erosion of meaning: if society fails to ****develop non-market sources of recognition and purpose, large numbers of people may experience freedom from work as emptiness, depression, or addiction to engineered distractions.

*income ness itself is already conditional.. let go.

**need to try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting/people telling other people what to do) as the planned obsolescence.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring..ie: sabbatical ish transition

***again.. thinking we have to have meaning itself.. is a cancerous distraction to the dance.. rather.. ie: graeber can’t know law; graeber unpredictability/surprise law; paul know\love law;.. et al

****recognition/purpose = cancerous distractions to the dance.. need a means sans any form of m\a\p.. this is again.. why we need tech w/o judgment

Further risks include the atrophy of human skills and judgment through over-reliance on AI systems, the degradation of democratic capacity if citizens become passive recipients rather than active participants, and the use of AI-driven persuasion to manage populations rather than to empower them.”

not risks.. already part of sea world.. every since that day.. and ongoingly pepertuating same song via ie: thinking we have to have judge\ment (rather than just listening to itch-in-8b-souls); thinking we have to have democratic admin via informed/participatory populace/citizenry; thinking we have to have any form of m\a\p

notes/quotes from joe’s substack:

Freedom in the Post-Work World – AI, UBI, and the Contested Future of Human Time joe corbett oct 2026

If artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence advance to the point of performing most economically valued labor—cognitive, creative, logistical, and physical—the existing link between work and livelihood will break, transforming the nature of work for humankind. In that condition, a universal basic income (UBI) or equivalent system of unconditional provision becomes not merely desirable but structurally necessary. Without some form of de-linked income, mass unemployment or underemployment would produce social collapse. Yet necessity need not equal dystopia. The same technological rupture that threatens to render human labor superfluous could also free large numbers of people from compulsory work, opening space for the cultivation of distinctive interests, creativity, care, learning, and contemplation. Whether this possibility is realized, or whether it curdles into new forms of control, profit seeking, and meaninglessness, depends on political choices, cultural preparation, and the *deliberate avoidance of certain paths by educating ourselves on the pitfalls and possibilities.

*aka: avoidance of any form of m\a\p.. (warning ness from what i can’t unsee)

see above for rest of notes on this paragraph

How the Transition Could Unfold

*The process would likely be uneven rather than instantaneous. Narrow AI first displaces routine cognitive and service work; more general systems then encroach on professional domains once thought immune—analysis, design, diagnosis, even aspects of scientific research and artistic production. Productivity rises sharply while the demand for human labor falls. Capital ownership of the AI systems concentrates returns in the hands of those who own the models, data, and infrastructure. Wages for remaining human tasks stagnate or become precarious. **At some threshold, the political and economic system confronts a choice: allow widespread destitution and unrest, or socialize a portion of the enormous productivity gains through universal, unconditional income. This is the same end-point that neoliberalism in general presents to us: the choice between civilization, or barbarism.

*what world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people

humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity .. simultaneous fittingness.. everyone in sync.. the dance

so.. warning ness.. for (blank)’s sake

**aka: nothing new.. same song .. perpetuating finite set of choices ness

UBI in this context would function as a dividend on collective technological inheritance rather than as traditional welfare. Funding could draw partly from the fiat currencies of sovereign nations already in effect within MMT economies like China, and partly from taxes on AI-generated value, data rents, carbon, land, or corporate profits, or from sovereign wealth mechanisms that treat advanced AI as a public or semi-public resource. *Pilot programs and partial basic incomes already provide limited evidence that unconditional cash does not produce mass idleness; many recipients combine it with part-time work, education, caregiving, or entrepreneurial experiments. Scaled to a post-scarcity labor environment, **the same mechanism could underwrite a broader shift in the meaning of adult life from necessity to freedom. Karl Marx’s ideal libertarian-communist society.

*ie’s that part\ial ness is keeping us in sea world .. which is keeping us perpetuating myth of tragedy and lord

**need a diff mech.. sans any form of m\a\p.. to get to life over survival ness

Indeed, Marshall McLuhan would probably see AI as a revolutionary freedom machine, a radical new extension of the human central nervous system and cognitive processes, one that reconfigures our entire sensory and psychic ratio far more profoundly than earlier electric media. By externalizing and automating aspects of thinking, memory, pattern recognition, and decision-making, AI will *alter perception itself—**speeding it up, abstracting it, and making the boundaries between inner thought and outer information increasingly porous—while reshaping the sense of self into something more distributed, provisional, and collaboratively generated with machines. Relations to others will shift toward a hyper-connected yet potentially fragmented “global village” intensified by ***algorithmic mediation, where presence, empathy, and community are filtered through ****predictive models and synthetic interactions.

oi.. this is great ie of whalespeak..

we need to let go. of all the irrelevant s (decision making; predictability; et al)

if we want the dance to dance we need to *alter (aka: detox via nonjudgmental part of nel) and **speed-up (via expo part of nel) and ***algo-mediate (via the labeling part of nonjudgmental exponential labeling).. otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song (again via ie: ****predictability et al).. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. perpetuating survival triage.. for (blank)’s sake..

Work, in Mcluhan’s view, would cease to be primarily a site of skilled manual or even intellectual craft and become instead a process of navigating, prompting, and *supervising intelligent systems, **dissolving traditional job structures. Money, as a medium already transformed by earlier technologies, would further dematerialize into fluid, ***data-driven flows of ****attention, prediction, and automated value, reinforcing a world in which the message of AI is not any particular content it produces but the total environmental redesign of human awareness, identity, and social-economic life: a true noosphere, or global brain, as Teilhard de Chardin would put it. In this context, a UBI would not only be necessary, it would fit right in to the entire cultural zeitgeist of the global techno-sphere, *****making it seem natural and normal rather than an exorbitant giveaway to “the do-nothing masses”.

if still * not **

***flows of data we need: self-talk as data via idiosyncratic jargon ie: imagine if we ness

****these are cancerous distractions

*****oooof.. whalespeak.. holding onto myth of tragedy and lord

Realizing the Positive Possibility

*However to turn the structural necessity of a UBI into an opportunity for freedom requires more than the transfer of money. First, the design of UBI itself matters. **It must be universal and unconditional—sufficient to live with dignity, free of behavioral surveillance or work requirements—so that it functions as a floor rather than a tool of discipline. Second, ***complementary institutions are needed: robust public education oriented toward lifelong learning and creativity rather than mere job training; accessible local and regional tools and spaces for making, research, and performance; support for caregiving and community activity; and cultural narratives that honor forms of contribution beyond paid employment.

*rather.. requires we let go of ‘money’.. any form of m\a\p

**only way to be legit universal and unconditional is if we use tech/ai/whatever with detox embed

***huge red flags that won’t be universal/unconditional (ie: robust Ed; research ness; performance; caregiving; contribution honoring; .. oi)

Education would need to shift from preparing people for roles that no longer exist toward cultivating the capacity for self-directed inquiry, aesthetic discrimination, scientific curiosity, and critical civic judgment. Local and digital commons could provide access to AI tools themselves, so that the means of creation are not monopolized, and thus the means of AI itself (the medium) becomes the message of educational meaning and purpose shaping human life. Governance of advanced AI would have to treat it, at least in part, as a public utility whose gains are broadly shared rather than as pure private property. Under these conditions, freedom from compulsory work could become freedom for the development of idiosyncratic talents, deep relationships, ecological restoration, philosophical and scientific exploration, and the recovery of attention from the machinery of perpetual economic pressure. A true socio-cultural neo-Renaissance. But the choice must be made to make this a deliberate outcome. It will not happen on its own.

notes from this para above

What Must Be Avoided

The dystopian alternatives to a neo-Renaissance are equally plausible and must be actively resisted. One danger is conditional or surveilled income: UBI systems that monitor behavior, punish “unproductive” uses of time, or integrate with social credit mechanisms would transform a potential instrument of freedom into a new apparatus of control. Another is extreme concentration of AI ownership, producing a small techno-elite and a dependent majority whose material security is real but whose agency and political power are negligible. A third danger is the erosion of meaning: if society fails to develop non-market sources of recognition and purpose, large numbers of people may experience freedom from work as emptiness, depression, or addiction to engineered distractions.

notes from this para above

Further risks include the atrophy of human skills and judgment through over-reliance on AI systems, the degradation of democratic capacity if citizens become passive recipients rather than active participants, and the use of AI-driven persuasion to manage populations rather than to empower them. *An economy that no longer needs most human labor can still need human compliance; the technologies that generate abundance can also generate sophisticated forms of dependency and soft coercion. **Avoiding these outcomes requires deliberate limits on surveillance, strong democratic oversight of AI development and deployment, distribution of access to advanced tools, and cultural investment in practices that sustain attention, competence, and mutual responsibility.

notes from first sentence above

still (and always since forever) *this.. if **this (ie: demo; oversight; investment in practices; sustain attention, competence, responsibility; .. ooof)

The arrival of AI systems capable of performing most work will force a *historic and unprecedented renegotiation of the relationship between livelihood and labor. A well-designed, unconditional basic income could convert that necessity into an unprecedented expansion of free time—time for the development of unique human capacities rather than for the endless reproduction of economic survival and surplus profits. Yet the same transition can produce a stratified, monitored, and spiritually impoverished order if ownership remains highly concentrated, income is made conditional, and no parallel effort is made to cultivate meaning and agency beyond the market. The technology itself does not decide between these futures. Politics, culture, and institutional design will. The opportunity is real; and so is the danger. The difference lies in whether freedom from work is treated as a collective achievement to be secured and enriched for all, or as a residual problem to be managed and tolerated by a powerful few. The choice is between stark contrasts of our future with AI.

*not historic/unprecedented .. just another renegotiation of same song.. this is why we need tech for something legit diff.. why we need tech w/o judgment

**again.. thinking ‘income’ ness itself is already conditional

_______

be you.

a quiet revolution

joe (c) on freedom ness

joe corbett on free dom ness

notes/quotes from joe’s substack:

How the Transition Could Unfold

Realizing the Positive Possibility

What Must Be Avoided

doing detox (self-talk)..