AI Leaders Advocate for Universal Basic Income as a Way to Address Job Loss and Inequality
Introduction
The idea of universal basic income (UBI)—regular, unconditional cash payments to all adults—has gained fresh attention among technology executives and researchers. They see it as a possible solution to economic problems caused by artificial intelligence (AI). Several well-known figures in the AI industry have publicly supported UBI or similar plans, while also noting the challenges of putting it into practice and offering other ideas.
Main Body
Universal basic income means giving regular cash payments to every adult in a certain group, without checking their income or requiring them to work. This idea, once seen as an idealistic dream, became a common topic during Andrew Yang''s 2020 U.S. presidential campaign. He proposed a monthly $1,000 ''Freedom Dividend.'' Although Yang did not win, the later distribution of pandemic stimulus checks and the fast progress of AI have brought back interest. More than 100 pilot programs of guaranteed basic income—a more targeted version—have been carried out across the United States, with active programs in at least 16 states and Washington, D.C. Supporters among AI leaders point out that AI could eliminate jobs and increase inequality. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman funded a three-year study that gave $1,000 each month to 1,000 low-income people in Texas and Illinois, while a control group received $50. The study reported that participants spent an average of $310 more each month, mainly on food, rent, and transportation. Initial reductions in stress and food insecurity decreased by the second and third years. Altman has also suggested a ''universal basic compute'' model, which would give people access to computing power from large language models instead of cash. He co-founded Worldcoin, a cryptocurrency project that uses iris scanning to create an identity network that could help distribute UBI. Elon Musk has supported a ''universal high income'' (UHI) paid by federal government checks. He argues that AI and robots will create so much abundance that work will become optional and money less important. On the ''Moonshots with Peter Diamandis'' podcast, Musk stated that saving for retirement would become unnecessary within 10 to 20 years. Diamandis, a longtime partner of Musk, explained further that progress in AI, robotics, and energy could lower the cost of goods and services, making a $3,000 monthly UBI enough to cover basic needs. He admitted that this vision is very different from current economic struggles but insisted that Musk''s predictions, though often late, have not been wrong. Diamandis also suggested that society might split into two groups: consumers living on UBI and creators using AI to start new businesses. Other industry figures have expressed support with conditions. Venture capitalist Vinod Khosla wrote that UBI could become essential as AI automates most human work, and that government regulation is needed to ensure fair distribution of wealth. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei described UBI as ''only a small part of a solution,'' predicting that AI will require bigger changes in society. AI ''godfather'' Geoffrey Hinton advised the UK government to adopt UBI to deal with job losses. Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis supported a ''universal high income'' to share the productivity gains from AI. Critics of UBI argue that unconditional payments may discourage work, encourage unnecessary spending, or require higher taxes and budget cuts. Ekaterina Abramova, a professor at London Business School, warned that long-term separation from meaningful economic activity could lead to skill loss and lower future productivity. She recommended combining universal income with rewards for learning, starting businesses, or doing socially valuable work.
Conclusion
The debate about universal basic income is still not settled. AI leaders see it as a necessary protection against job loss from technology, while critics point out possible economic and social problems. Many pilot programs and policy discussions show that the idea is moving from a niche concept to a serious policy topic, but there is no agreement on how to implement or fund it.