AI could lead to massive job losses. Is basic income a possible answer?

Last week, the research arm of the world’s most well-known artificial intelligence (AI) company released a large study on universal basic income. 

OpenResearch, a division of OpenAI, gave 3,000 random study participants either $1,000 (€920) or $50 (€46.16) per month for three years with no questions asked. 

The research found the majority directed that money towards their basic needs, like rent and food, and dedicated more of their time to caring for others. They even considered going back to school, finding more meaningful work or moving to other parts of the United States. 

“Cash is the only tool that provides the flexibility needed to address the diverse challenges people face over time,” Karina Dotson, research & insights manager at OpenResearch, told Euronews Next. 

“As the economy and labour market continue to evolve, the social safety net must also evolve,” she said. 

Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, is one of a long list of Silicon Valley’s big tech bosses advocating for a basic income to weather massive AI-driven job losses in the years to come. He has called it an “obvious conclusion” for his prediction that “computers will replace effectively all manufacturing”. 

What’s at stake

Estimates for how many jobs AI could cut are inconclusive. 

A January analysis from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found that almost 40 per cent of global employment is exposed to AI. That number goes up to 60 per cent in “advanced economies,” where some of these jobs could possibly disappear. 

Forty-one per cent of executives in C-Suite positions are thinking about hiring fewer people due to AI, according to a recent study from Swiss staffing firm Adecco.

However, research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that only 23 per cent of jobs in the United States could be replaced by AI in a way that would be cost-effective and that it would take “decades” for some tasks, like computer vision, to perform the same tasks as humans. 

A scientific report from the AI Seoul Summit said meanwhile that any temporary job losses would be “short term” and eventually offset by new ones in line with other waves of automation. 

Whether workers have the necessary skills to switch jobs or locations to match the new labour market will influence how quickly the market adjusts, the report continues. 

The job losses could lead to “a difficult transition for some workers unless support is made available,” according to the report. 

‘Feeling secure makes people embrace technological change’

Guy Standing, founder and co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network, said the pessimistic argument about AI taking all people’s jobs is “getting too much attention”.

That’s because, despite the rise of AI, countries like the US are reporting their highest number of vacancies in history. 

What society should focus on is how a universal basic income can tackle the even wider gap between rich and poor as a response to the AI revolution, where most of the world’s population is living in “chronic insecurity,” Standing said. 

“If we don’t move towards a basic income, we will see more suicides, stress and more support for the far right,” he added. 

Anselm Küsters, head of the new technologies department at the Centre for European Policy, said another side effect of a universal basic income is that it will wipe away any scepticism that people might have about AI coming for their livelihoods.

That means people will be more likely to “believe in these technologies and implement them in their lives,” he continued. 

“Feeling secure and supported is what makes people embrace technological change,” Küsters said. “It’ll help them with upskilling and (creating) new AI products.” 

“If people are sceptical, there will be new monopolies and no new innovation.” 

Would basic income work in the EU?

Both Standing and Küsters say it’s hard to know what amount of money would be appropriate for a basic income because it would be different across the board based on the cost of living. 

Applying a uniform universal basic income across the EU would be tricky, Küsters continued, because the social policy and rules per member state as well as how much money should be guaranteed will greatly vary.

For Küsters, the discussion needs to start with international bodies like the G7 or the G20 to avoid any inequalities in basic income systems that might lead to companies relocating headquarters to avoid it. 

The G7 adopted the Hiroshima AIprocess last December, the first voluntary international framework that “promotes the safe, secure and trustworthy advanced AI systems,” according to their website. 

Last week, the G20 agreed to work together on an ultra-rich tax that could lead to rates of up to 2 per cent on fortunes over $1 billion (€920 million), according to media reports. 

The eventual tax could yield a global revenue of up to $250 billion (€231 billion) from the world’s richest 3,000 citizens. 

These discussions at both tables give Küsters hope that both the G7 and the G20 would be interested in tackling the basic income question. 

If individual EU states do want to go after a basic income, Küsters suggests politicians make agreements with the insurance industry to update their protections for the AI age. 

That way, a basic income could flow down to people without affecting each state’s potential to retain big businesses from going to more competitive markets.