内容来源：https://aiweekly.co/issues/100-years-from-now-the-allowance

内容总结：

新闻特稿：当经济崩塌的制造者提出“发钱封口”——科技巨头的全民基本收入方案遭质疑

本周，《百年展望》系列聚焦一个充满讽刺意味的现象：那些曾主张政府不干预市场、反对福利依赖的科技亿万富翁们，如今正集体呼吁政府向全民发放“基本收入”。

特斯拉创始人埃隆·马斯克近日在其社交平台X置顶发帖，称“通过联邦政府发放支票实现全民高收入，是应对AI导致失业的最佳方式”。OpenAI首席执行官山姆·奥特曼则更进一步，提出以“计算代币”形式发放“全民极端财富”。人工智能公司Anthropic的达里奥·阿莫迪与风投家维诺德·科斯拉也相继表态，认为全民基本收入（UBI）是必要的“安全网”。

然而，批评者指出，这并非善意的社会救助，而是一场精心设计的“社会许可”游戏。一篇发表于《人工智能前沿》期刊的同行评审论文直指，UBI倡议的本质是“为换取公众接受而支付的代价”——当AI接管一切时，发放足够让人们不反抗的金钱。学者借用布迪厄的“符号暴力”理论指出，这种支配之所以生效，是因为被支配者甚至不认为自己在被支配，反而视之为帮助。

更尖锐的批评来自作者亚历克西斯：由那些取代你工作的人支付的UBI，不是安全网，而是“狗绳”。“他们夺走你的工作，抹去你十年积累的技能，然后每月给你一张支票——资金来自他们游说压低税率的税收，通过他们控制的数字系统分发。你依赖的是那些使你变得依赖的人。”这不是权利，而是可随时撤销的零花钱。

马斯克本人也无意中道破了这一逻辑。他在近期访谈中坦言：“可能我们所有人都不会有工作了。真正的问题将是意义——如果电脑能比你做所有事更好，你的生活还有意义吗？我确实认为人类或许仍有一个角色：我们可能赋予AI意义。”在马斯克构想的“最佳情景”中，人类的终极意义是充当AI的观众与宠物，而他愿意为这一“特权”付费。

尤为值得注意的是，奥特曼提出的“计算代币”方案——将你的收入与AI处理能力挂钩，一旦OpenAI系统宕机，你的收入也随之消失。这意味着一百年后，人类社会可能退化为一种新型封建制：少数公司掌握着生产、思维乃至生存的手段，而其余人只能依赖他们决定发放的任何东西。

“我们曾称之为封建制度，他们称之为进步。”作者写道，“领主发放救济从来不是因为仁慈，而是因为饥饿的农民无法耕田。那张支票是为领主开的，不是为农民。”

中文翻译：

这是《百年之后》系列专栏，每周更新一期。每期我们跃过一个世纪，设想当如今正在构建的技术真正融入生活时，世界会是什么模样。

本周话题：那些搞垮经济的亿万富翁，想花钱买你闭嘴。

上周，埃隆·马斯克在其X账号置顶了一条推文："由联邦政府发放支票实现全民高收入，是应对AI导致失业的最佳方式。"

萨姆·奥尔特曼想玩得更大——用计算代币支付"全民极端财富"。阿莫迪认为全民基本收入可能是"解决方案的一部分"。科斯拉称这是必要的安全网。他们异口同声。

这些人二十年来一直鼓吹政府不应干预市场，救济会滋生依赖，个人应当自立。马斯克甚至亲自操刀联邦政府削减成本计划。如今他们却要求政府给每个公民寄支票。

为什么？因为他们搞砸了，而且心知肚明。那些正在制造吞噬工作岗位工具的人，正抢先提出要为损失买单——按他们的规则，通过他们的平台，用他们的算法来计算。

由夺走你工作的人支付的全民基本收入，不是安全网，而是狗绳。

他们夺走你的工作。夺走你花费十年磨练的技能。然后每月给你一张支票——资金来自他们会游说压低税率的税收，通过他们控制的数字系统分发。你变得依赖那些让你一无所有的人。这不是权利，是零花钱。而零花钱随时可能被收回。

当资金枯竭，或代币贬值，或公司转向更赚钱的业务时，你能怎样？你没有工作可以回去重操旧业。你的技能早被他们淘汰殆尽。你没有谈判筹码，因为筹码需要对方需要的东西，而他们连这个也自动化了。

《人工智能前沿》期刊上一份同行评议论文一针见血：这是"社会许可"的把戏。全民基本收入的提案不是慈善，而是换取公众接受的代价——给的钱刚好够阻止人们在AI接管一切时造反。作者引用布迪厄的"符号暴力"概念：这种支配之所以有效，是因为被支配者意识不到这是支配。他们以为自己在被帮助。

马斯克把话挑明了：

"可能我们都不会有工作。真正的问题将变成意义：如果电脑能比人类做得更好，你的生命还有意义吗？我确实认为人类或许仍有一席之地——我们可以赋予AI意义。"

在马斯克的设想中，人类最好的结局就是存在本身为AI赋予意义。我们是观众，是宠物。他还想为这个特权付费给人类。

整个自由意志主义的论调曾是：依赖具有腐蚀性——人们需要能动性、自主权和离开的能力。而现在，同一批人正在建造人类历史上最彻底的依赖结构，却称之为自由。

他们甚至不加掩饰。奥尔特曼不想给你现金。他想给你计算代币——你可以使用、出售或共享的AI算力份额。你的收入取决于能否接入他们的基础设施。OpenAI停运的那天，你的收入也随之消失。你不是持有银行账户的公民，而是拥有余额的用户。

一个世纪后的世界，将是少数公司拥有生产资料、思维工具和生存手段的文明——而我们其余人靠他们决定分配的任何东西维生。

我们曾称之为封建制度。他们称之为进步。

领主给农民支票不是出于善意。他给钱是因为快饿死的农民无法耕种。支票是为了领主，不是为了农民。

领主们开出了条件。问题在于我们是否已绝望到接受它们——或者愚蠢到称之为权利。

——亚历克西斯

英文来源：

This is 100 Years From Now, a weekly series. Once a week we skip a century and try to picture what life actually looks like when the stuff we're building now has had time to settle in.
This week: the billionaires who broke the economy want to pay you to shut up about it.
Last week, Elon Musk pinned a post to the top of his X profile: "Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI."
Sam Altman wants to go bigger — "universal extreme wealth", paid in compute tokens. Amodei says UBI may be "part of the answer." Khosla says it's a necessary safety net. All of them, in unison.
These are the guys who spent twenty years arguing that government should stay out of markets, that handouts breed dependency, that the individual should stand on their own. Musk literally ran a federal cost-cutting operation. And now they want the government to mail checks to every citizen.
Why? Because they broke the thing, and they know it. The people building the tools that eat the jobs are pre-emptively offering to pay for the damage — on their terms, through their platforms, using their math.
A universal basic income paid by the people who automated your job is not a safety net. It's a leash.
They take your job. They take the skills you spent a decade building. Then they offer you a monthly check — funded by taxes they'll lobby to keep low, distributed through digital systems they control. You become dependent on the same people who made you dependent. That's not a right. That's an allowance. And an allowance can be revoked.
What happens when the fund runs dry, or the tokens lose value, or the company pivots to something more profitable? You have no job to go back to. No skills they didn't already make obsolete. No leverage, because leverage requires something the other side needs, and they automated that too.
A peer-reviewed paper in Frontiers in AI called this exactly what it is: a "social license" play. The UBI pitch isn't charity. It's the price of public acceptance — just enough money to stop people from rioting while AI takes over everything else. The author uses Bourdieu's concept of "symbolic violence": domination that works because the dominated don't recognize it as domination. They think they're being helped.
Musk said the quiet part out loud:
"Probably none of us will have a job. The question will really be one of meaning: if a computer can do everything better than you, does your life have meaning? I do think there's perhaps still a role for humans in that we may give AI meaning."
In Musk's best-case scenario, humans exist to give AI meaning. We're the audience. The pets. And he wants to pay us for the privilege.
The whole libertarian argument was that dependency is corrosive — that people need agency, autonomy, the ability to walk away. And now the same people are building the most complete dependency structure in human history, and calling it freedom.
They're not even hiding it. Altman doesn't want to give you cash. He wants to give you compute tokens — a share of AI processing power you can use, sell, or pool. Your income denominated in access to their infrastructure. The day OpenAI goes down, your income goes with it. You're not a citizen with a bank account. You're a user with a balance.
A hundred years of this looks like a civilization where a handful of companies own the means of production, the means of thought, and the means of survival — and the rest of us live on whatever they decide to distribute.
We used to call that feudalism. They're calling it progress.
The lord doesn't give the peasant a check out of kindness. He gives it because a starving peasant can't work the field. The check is for the lord, not the peasant.
The lords are offering their terms. The question is whether we're desperate enough to take them.
Or dumb enough to call it a right.
— Alexis