There are two visions of universal basic income. And the gap between them is the gap between freedom and 1984. Vision one is Sam Altman's. In Moore's Law for Everything, he proposes an American Equity Fund: the State taxes companies and land, then redistributes to citizens. The State sits between the people and the companies that create value. Every dollar you receive goes through it. Think about what that means. The entity that decides who gets what, how much, and under which conditions becomes the most powerful entity in human history. Your income depends on your compliance. That's not a safety net. That's a leash. Orwell didn't need AI to imagine where this ends. Vision two is Musk's. The companies that create value give it directly to the people. No ministry. No agency. No committee deciding who deserves what. You own a piece of the machine. Want to work on top of that? Work. Nobody can take it away because you voted wrong or posted wrong. Notice the words Elon uses. He doesn't talk about Universal Basic Income. He talks about Universal High Income. That's not a detail. It's the whole thesis. UBI is a scarcity concept. A minimum check, voted by politicians, to keep you alive while the machines do the work. Universal High Income is an abundance concept. In the world AI is creating, value grows exponentially and the cost of almost everything collapses toward zero. That's massive deflation. In that world, a fixed check from the State is the worst possible model: it's always late, always negotiated, always smaller than the value actually created. Equity is the best model. When you own a piece of the companies building the future, your income grows at the speed of innovation, not at the speed of a parliamentary vote. And it keeps the State from standing between the people and the companies, slowing down the very innovation that makes abundance possible. Here's what most people miss: this design also kills institutional capture. Look at how influence works today. You don't need to win elections. You fund the intermediaries. The Gates Foundation became one of the largest funders of the WHO. Soros money flowed into NGOs, think tanks, district attorney races. Same playbook every time: whoever finances the middle layer controls the middle layer. Billionaires giving isn't the problem. Gates and Soros give too. The difference is where the money goes. They fund institutions that then decide for you. Musk gives ownership to individuals. No strings, no intermediary to steer. Vision one builds a giant central intermediary, the most valuable capture target ever created. Every lobby, every foundation, every ideologue will fight to control it. Vision two has no center to capture. You can't corrupt a pipe that goes straight from the company to the citizen. Corruption isn't fought. It's made impossible by design. Will capture disappear overnight? No. But it loses its target. And a parasite without a host doesn't last long. What Elon is doing is rewriting civilization's operating system. Removing the parasitic layer between those who create and those who receive. Because that's what it takes to become a Kardashev Type II civilization, one that harnesses the full energy of its star. You don't get there with a bureaucracy approving every step. The question was never "should we share the abundance AI creates?" It's "who stands between you and it?" His answer: nobody.

NEVER try to make people like you. You could LITERALLY build a flying car and donate $10 billion to children, and people will STILL find ways to shit on you. Just be you. DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK! JUST DO COOL SHIT!!!!!

⚡️Musk is attempting something far more consequential than a $10.7 billion giveaway. He’s creating a generation of Americans with a direct financial interest in the success of one of the country’s most strategically important companies. The genius of the structure is the distribution. One share per child creates millions of individual ownership relationships while leaving concentrated corporate control largely intact. A $146 gift has limited immediate economic significance. Its potential power comes from what happens afterward. Every SpaceX milestone becomes personal. Every increase in valuation raises the value of an asset held by American families. And every political battle involving SpaceX now has the potential to become a debate over the financial interests of those families. Musk is attempting to convert corporate success into a form of distributed political legitimacy. But the mechanism goes deeper. SpaceX already operates in sectors central to American strategic power: launch infrastructure, satellite communications, and defense. Its relationship with Washington will become increasingly consequential as space infrastructure expands. By distributing ownership across American children, Musk would begin aligning three constituencies that historically had different interests: shareholders, the federal government, and ordinary households. That alignment becomes especially powerful if SpaceX continues appreciating over decades. Children who receive their first share could eventually become adults whose earliest investment was tied to America’s space infrastructure. Musk is trying to turn SpaceX from a company Americans depend on into a company Americans feel they own. And the deeper consequence is the precedent. Private control of critical national infrastructure becomes easier to defend when millions of citizens have been given a financial stake in its success. If executed, this would be an unusually ambitious attempt to transform concentrated corporate wealth into mass ownership without surrendering the underlying concentration of power.

Is chat the final form of the AI agent interface? The terminal wasn't the final form of computing either. My bet: generative UI that builds itself around the task, with voice and chat on top.

I think understanding system design and UX design matters more now than ever (someone said AX, agent experience, too. I agree). Agents write most of my code now (and do most tasks, so most product usage). What's left on me is how it all fits together and how it feels to use.

Super Intelligence is already causing severe labor shortages, as I predicted. My next prediction is that these labor shortages will spread throughout the economy, because SI magically upskills the labor force. Real wages are going to go parabolic.

I just cancelled my private Figma subscription. I've been a designer for 25+ years. Fireworks, Sketch, InVision, Figma. I've used them all. My side-project stack is now three things: → ChatGPT Images for concept art → Claude Design for screens → Claude Code or Codex for everything else That last one does a lot more than write code. With MCPs and command-line access, the same agent drives Unity, Blender, Tripo3D for 3D models, and asc for App Store launches. It didn't happen in one decision. It happened one habit at a time. First I stopped designing before building. Now I build an ugly working prototype, use it on my phone, and only design what survives. Then I stopped exporting designs into Figma. Every export meant cleaning up layers, and the next prompt would regenerate them anyway. Then I tried most of the new AI design tools. MagicPath, Superdesign and others. Good tools. But every new tool is another place my context gets stuck, and another subscription. I don't even keep Claude and Codex both. I switch my one Pro subscription to whichever model is best that month. My project notes live in plain markdown files, so the next agent picks up where the last one left off. To be clear: at work, Figma is still the source of truth, and it should be. A team with a design system needs one shared file everyone trusts. But for one person shipping apps at night, the design file became the app. Designers: are you still paying for Figma yourself?