The basis of this article is the view that AI, coupled with robots, is going to destroy jobs. This is a topic that is hotly debated, especially within the technology sector. Many believe in the saying that "technology always creates more jobs than it destroys". For me, I think the data says otherwise, at least over the last 30 years.

One point we have to consider is the outcome of job devastation is at least a potentiality. Considering the advancement of AI, it is a pace unseen. This means that knowledge work could be at risk. The blue collar sector might be slower although robots could roll through in the early 2030s.

Since there is the potential for massive job losses, a discussion about the possible ramifications is warranted. For most who offer up a solution, the answer seems to be universal basic income (UBI). We will discuss this will offering up reasons why this is not the answer.

If UBI is not the solution, what could be? Hopefully, over the next couple years there will be a lot of answers. To me, the most sensible outcome is Universal Basic AI (UBAI).

Image generated by Ideogram

The Solution To Job Destruction: Universal Basic AI

Before diving into UBAI, let us look at UBI. As stated, many believe governments will offer this. On this part I agree. That said, I differ from many in that governments will do so in an attempt to remain relevant as opposed to providing an answer to a major problem.

There are a number of problems with governments, most which are becoming clear. Because of this, the idea of government dependence is foolish. History, both recent and long term, shows how this backfires.

To start, we saw a period around the world where there were harsh punishments instilled by governments for not taking what turns out to be an experimental drug treatment. Recently revelations unearth some of the questions regarding the entire situation. These questions were cast aside (actually censored) with people losing their jobs for lack of compliance.

It is the power that is at the mercy of those in government. People show up for elections to cast their decision on the status quo or change. Most systems are designed to provide that power to the population.

Of course, as we are also seeing, this isn't the case. Politicians are often the ones who hold the least amount of power. In the United States, we are seeing how bureaucrats, NGOs, and special interest groups (usually on behalf of major corporations/industries) wield the magic wand.

Even when they are exerting influence on the situation, we are subject to political winds. While you might be favored status today, that can change drastically in the next cycle.

Does anyone think these are people who are going to act in the general interests of the population? Looking at the last 40 or 50 years, the answer is no.

Another problem with governments is they are on the path to collapse. Confidence is in free fall, likely to cause major economic problems.

The present model for most governments is to promise everything to the population (which gets funneled to the actors listed above) and fund it through debt. This can continue if the confidence exists on the part of those purchasing the debt.

I wrote a number of articles outlining how the EU is one region that is on the path to implosion. Confidence is waning and their debt is moving towards junk. How do they fund UBI if they cannot meet their present obligations?

The bill in the United States for Social Security and Medicare is astronomical. Couple that with the interest on the existing debt and it is easy to see why this one, in spite of the economic might, will end up as the rest.

And this is the solution?

Universal Basic AI (UBAI)

There is a segment of the population that is convinced that AI is simply going to take over more of our economic productivity. This is a circle of people that keeps growing.

When we talk about a cross-section of the population, this is represented here. I see Boomer conservatives, young liberals, high school drop outs, and PhD in natural sciences holding this view. Anyone who engaged with chatbots over the last 24 months realizes how things are changing.

UBI provides people with income whereas UBAI provides the ability to generate economic output.

What is being provided to people is the ability to produce cognitive units. A factory manufactures units of output, such as a car or a waffle maker. AI is the same except it provides cognitive ability. This is probably the basis for most of our economy as we enter the mid 2030s.

The basic concept of UBAI is that everyone owns AI. This is different than having access to AI. We are seeing the latter arising now. AI is being incorporated into most websites. Over the next decade, AI agents will form a larger piece of the puzzle. Most of these will be unseen as they operate in the background.

Where an issue is arising is the fact that anyone can access ChatGPT or Grok, the financial benefits are directed towards the owners behind those models. We see the usual Big Tech names establishing their footprints.

UBAI alters this in a way that ensures all is open. It is a baseline whereby the components of AI are available to all. This means data, compute, and algorithms. If these are only accessible to the major companies, humanity will be pushed further into a state of serfdom.

Hoping for a few scraps from an intermediary, i.e. the government, is not a wise path to take.

Move Away From Income

To his credit, Sam Altman thought about this. He has started a couple tokenized projects in an attempt to address this. He is operating outside government, providing something that could be a solution.

The challenge, as I see it, is the focus is still on income. How do we put money in people's hands? This is the age old idea which amounts to another form of slavery.

It is a bit ironic that Altman is the one looking into this problem when he is the major figure in OpenAI. Why doesn't he offer out AI ownership through that company? The answer is evident: the investors will never allow it.

Altman is not interested in sharing the spoils of that company. He certainly is not focused upon diluting the financial benefits and spreading them across large segments of the population.

Instead, he is turning "open" into "closed and for profit". This aligns him with most of the other major Western models.

Of course, some opine that taxation is the solution. Simply tax people like Altman (and the robots), all will be well. I reference the section above as to the flaws in this thinking. It puts government, an entity that is corrupt beyond imagination, at the center of it. This would be fatal at a time if most are dependent upon it.

It is also focus upon income.

The way to conceptualize this is focusing upon the product as compared to the factory. If it were a physical item, the output rolls off the assembly line. UBI is screaming for the factory to give the items away for free.

UBAI is not asking for the output but, rather, our own factory. This stems from the concept of an AI factory, something that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang discusses with regularity.

With this concept in mind, interested parties can go about constructing the solution. The basis of this is open, starting with infrastructure (compute) and data. Ensuring this is available to all, without central control is crucial. Our present path is one of major corporations holding these assets.

The final difference to consider is the fact UBI is something that is simply decided upon. Governments officials will vote for this. even though we saw it fail repeatedly. For UBAI, the decision is not to provide it but, rather, buiid it.

Posted Using INLEO