A recent article explores the idea that the over US$1 trillion invested in artificial intelligence globally since 2015 could be imagined as redistributed to households, providing roughly US$64 per month per household as a form of Universal Basic Income (UBI). This thought experiment raises the question of whether societies should prioritize long-term AI-driven growth or immediate financial support for citizens.
The article highlights that AI investments aim to drive innovation, efficiency, and economic growth across multiple sectors. Supporters argue that such investments could bring transformative benefits, from improved healthcare to automation of tedious tasks, potentially raising overall living standards. Conversely, critics warn that widespread automation could displace workers, particularly in routine jobs, increasing economic inequality unless gains are redistributed.
In the UBI scenario, providing $64 per month to every household might appear modest, but for the lowest-earning quarter of households, it could amount to around $256 per month — offering a meaningful cushion for vulnerable families. This could help reduce poverty, alleviate financial stress, and provide a basic level of economic security. However, opponents note that this income alone may not cover living essentials, and without additional support systems like affordable healthcare, housing, and employment opportunities, UBI might be insufficient.
Ultimately, the article frames the debate not as “AI or UBI?” but as a question of how the economic gains from AI can be fairly shared. It suggests that redistributive mechanisms, potentially including AI-related taxation, could help ensure that the value generated by AI benefits a broader segment of society rather than a small elite.
