It seems the discussion, in some circles, about AI and robitics obliterating jobs is gaining some steam. Over the last 6 months, I noticed a number of technology people switch their thinking on this matter. Some of these I followed for years, a time when they were firmly in the camp of "technology always creates more jobs than it destorys". Now, they are singing a different tune.

Some are in the camp of uncertainty whereas a few conclude the pace of advancement means that massive job destruction is inevitable. Personally, I am in the latter camp, a place I resided for a number of years.

Unfortunately, few are discussing what the solutions to this problem could be. We see politicians sticking their heads in the sand. This is no surprise since they tend to be reactionary creatures anyway. They will appear on camera after the situation turns into a crisis.

For those who are warning about this, the default answer seems to be universal basic income. On paper, this might seem like a good idea. Unfortunately, it puts the government right in the middle of the situation, something that is repeatedly being proven as a bad idea.

The reality is that government = corruption. This is not a great place to be when your surival depends up the system operating in a beneficial way.

For this reason, we need to come up with something else.

Image generated by Grok

Universal Basic AI: The Solution To The Jobs Problem

The idea of Universal Basic AI makes a great deal more sense. From this perspective, we can see how distribution of economic gains accelerates.

What is UBAI?

It stems from the fact that future economic productivity will be driven mostly by AI and robots. Automation is the keyword. Anything non-biological that moves will be automated. At the same time, most everything else will have sensors in them, leading to a "smart" world.

We covered the idea of the "agentic internet". Here we see the shift from human generated activty to automation. Entire companies will emerge from nothing more than a handful of agents combined into a swarm. Some of these could be worth billioins of dollars.

This concept extends into the real world once we start tying robots into the equation. At that point, automation is not only digital but physical.

As always, the question of ownership and distribution of the financial beneifts enters.

The picture we are painting here is a complete economic disruption from most everything we know. Economists like to focus upon the labor-capital equation. It is part of the foundation of modern economies. For decades, the trend was away from labor towards capital. This is accelerating in pace.

We can conclude that AI will be the "brains" of society. Robots will, on the other hand, provide the muscle. The latter is something we saw accelerate over the last half century. The time is getting close where AI goes after the knowledge work. Sadly, the transition will not take multiple decades.

So what are people going to do?

This is a two part question. The first is what happens financially. A second pathway is the concept of meaning. Perhaps we will discuss the latter in a future article.

For now, let us focus upon the financial aspect.

Universal Basic AI

Most solutions offered in relation to this problem deal with the distribution of financial benefits. That is what Universal Baisc Income is. Under the common framework of this proposal, the government taxes those who own the means of economic productivity, then redistribute the proceeds to the population.

The question is whether we can shift the discussion down one level? This is what the Unversable Basic AI concept does.

Instead of distributing the financial benefits of economic productivity, why not do that with the creator? In other words, focus upon the AI as opposed to the money itself.

Once we move to this level, a host of possibilities open up which are outside the scope of this article. Do you focus upon infrastructure, AI agents, or applications? Each are going to be drivers of economic productivity, amassing value over time.

For the sake of our discussion, we can look at infrastructure. Here is where we harken back to the base unit, the network. When it comes to infrastructure in the digital world, that is where we find the value.

Google. Visa. Meta. Amazon. PayPal. Spotify.

Where do these companies derive their value? From the networks they built. This is what allows users to interact, accessing a range of features and services. Of course, the issue is we have an exclusionary system.

My view is we are embarking upon an explosion of networks. Web 3.0 will see an abundance of these. Much of it is driven by the ability to fork open networks (software), instantly creating a new one. We already see many of these tokenized, providing holders with stake in whatever value is generated.

AI Distribution

The discussion will inevitable flow into the public (government) versus private distribution. Do we put this in the hands of the government, with then establishment programs or depend upon the private (crypto) sector to handle it?

This is something that I presume Sam Altman gave throught to. He started Worldcoin with the idea of having a UBI through crypto. There are many aspects to this project that I disagree with but the thought pattern is worthy of discussion.

Also, Altman focused upon the distribution of tokens, not of the value. While it could be theorized that the tokens have stake in the network, what is taking place to build it. In other words, in a world that will be driven by AI, what AI services will make Worldcoin valuable?

I would say it is logical that Altman avoids this idea. He is a big player in OpenAI, with a goal to make that a $100 trillion company. Obviously, something that is open and competes with that is not on Sam's agenda. That value will reside with Altman and his investors.

What about a Worldcoin concept that focuses upon AI infrastructure and services? The entire system could be modeled after the nation-state yet shifting towards the digital realm. Hence, we take a step closer to the network-state philosophy.

Obviously, this would not be based upon geograhic region. That is so 1800.

The point to this is, with the labor (income) - captial equation changing, we need to shift our thinking. There is the tendency to focus upon the output instead of the mechanisms of input. If AI is at the core, then perhaps it is best to ceontrante on getting ownership of the base units in people's hands.

With the pace of change, a completely new way of approaching problems is required.

Posted Using INLEO