Should there be a universal basic income due to AI automation?

Opening Statement

The opening statement sets the foundation of any debate — it is the first impression, the intellectual blueprint, and the moral compass of a team’s position. In the motion “Should there be a universal basic income due to AI automation?”, both sides must grapple not only with economics but with ethics, identity, and the future of human purpose. Below are two powerful, innovative, and strategically sound opening statements — one from the affirmative, one from the negative — designed to guide students in constructing deep, persuasive, and memorable arguments.

Affirmative Opening Statement

Ladies and gentlemen, imagine this: a single algorithm now writes news articles, diagnoses diseases, designs buildings, and even composes symphonies. Artificial intelligence isn’t just automating tasks — it’s redefining what it means to work. And when machines can do more than half the jobs humans once held, we face a fundamental question: what happens to the people left behind?

We affirm the motion: there should be a universal basic income due to AI automation — not as a handout, but as a human right in the age of artificial minds.

First, AI is causing structural unemployment at an unprecedented scale and speed. Unlike past industrial revolutions, which displaced manual labor slowly and allowed time for retraining, AI is penetrating high-skill domains — law, medicine, finance, art. A 2023 McKinsey report estimates that by 2030, up to 30% of current work hours in the U.S. could be automated. This isn't cyclical unemployment; it's systemic collapse. Without UBI, millions will fall into poverty not because they’re lazy, but because the economy no longer has a place for them.

Second, UBI is not welfare — it’s a dividend on technological progress. When AI systems generate trillions in corporate value, who owns that wealth? If robots mine data like gold, and algorithms produce profits like factories, then every citizen deserves a share. Think of UBI as a modern version of Alaska’s oil dividend — but instead of natural resources, we’re harvesting digital ones. Denying people this dividend is like letting a few shareholders keep all the proceeds while the rest of society bears the cost of disruption.

Third, UBI empowers human potential beyond labor. Critics say “people will stop working,” but history shows otherwise. Finnish UBI trials found increased well-being, creativity, and even entrepreneurial activity. With basic needs secured, people pursue caregiving, education, art, and community building — forms of contribution the market ignores but society depends on. UBI doesn’t replace work; it redefines dignity.

And finally, let us be clear: this is not about fear — it’s about foresight. We are not asking to retreat from AI, but to prepare for its consequences. Just as Social Security was created before the Great Depression hit, just as public education emerged before industrialization peaked, so too must we build safety nets before the crisis unfolds.

We stand not against technology, but for humanity. For a future where progress lifts all boats — not just the yachts. That future begins with universal basic income.

Negative Opening Statement

Thank you.

Let me begin with a paradox: the more advanced our machines become, the more we seem to treat humans like obsolete software. The proposal before us — that we fund a universal basic income solely because of AI automation — sounds compassionate. But compassion without realism is charity dressed as policy. We oppose this motion not out of indifference, but out of responsibility.

We reject UBI driven by AI fears because it is fiscally unsustainable, socially corrosive, and philosophically flawed.

First, the numbers don’t add up. The U.S. alone has over 330 million people. A $1,000 monthly UBI would cost $4 trillion annually — nearly the entire federal budget. Where does the money come from? Taxing tech giants more? Even doubling capital gains taxes wouldn’t cover half of it. Printing money leads to inflation. Borrowing leads to intergenerational debt. And let’s be honest: politicians love announcing giveaways, but hate explaining trade-offs. UBI promises security but delivers fiscal illusion.

Second, universal transfer undermines the link between effort and reward — the very engine of civilization. Work is not just income; it’s identity, routine, belonging. Japan and South Korea already face “death by overwork” — but in Europe, we see rising rates of depression in regions with high passive income reliance. When people feel useless, they become useless. UBI risks creating a permanent underclass not because they can’t work, but because they no longer believe they should.

Third, this is a solution in search of a problem. Yes, AI disrupts jobs — but it also creates new ones. Did ATMs eliminate bank tellers? No — they shifted their role toward customer service. Will AI replace radiologists? Perhaps — but it will also demand AI ethicists, trainers, auditors, and interface designers. The answer isn’t to pay people not to adapt, but to invest in agile education, lifelong learning, and sector-specific transition programs. Targeted support beats blanket cash.

And here’s the deeper truth: UBI assumes inevitability — that mass unemployment is unavoidable. But what if it’s not? What if, instead of surrendering to dystopia, we shape AI to augment humans, not replace them? Why automate everything when we could use AI to reduce working hours, enhance creativity, and restore balance?

We don’t need a check to survive the future. We need courage to build it. Let us choose empowerment over dependency, innovation over inertia, and human agency over algorithmic determinism.

That is why we stand firmly against universal basic income as a response to AI automation.

Rebuttal of Opening Statement

In the rebuttal phase, the debate sharpens from vision to scrutiny. Here, teams no longer merely present ideals — they test them against reality, logic, and consequence. The second debater steps into the arena not to repeat, but to refine; not to defend passively, but to strike at the heart of the opposition’s reasoning. In this pivotal moment, clarity becomes weaponized, and assumptions are put on trial.

Affirmative Second Debater Rebuttal

Let me begin by thanking my worthy opponents — not for their compassion, which I do not doubt, but for their unintentional confirmation of our thesis: they fear the human cost of AI so deeply that they’d rather deny it than design for it.

They claim UBI is fiscally impossible — a trillion-dollar fantasy. But let’s be honest: so was public education in 1800. So was Medicare in 1940. Every transformative policy once sounded “unaffordable” until society decided it was unacceptable not to act.

Their math assumes static systems — same taxes, same money supply, same economy. But we are proposing a new economic paradigm. If AI generates $15 trillion in global productivity gains by 2030, as PwC forecasts, why can’t we fund UBI through an automation dividend tax? A 10% levy on profits derived from fully automated workflows — not punitive, but proportional. Or consider taxing data as a natural resource: your digital footprint trains AI models worth billions. Shouldn’t you get a cut?

And let’s address their moral panic: “People will stop working!” Really? In the Manitoba Basic Income Experiment, employment dipped slightly — mostly among parents staying home with newborns and students staying in school. Is that failure — or success?

They cite Japan and South Korea’s overwork culture, then warn us against idleness? Make up your mind: is modern life too demanding, or too empty? We say both extremes stem from a broken equation — one that ties survival exclusively to wage labor. UBI restores balance.

Finally, they argue AI creates new jobs — like ATM machines didn’t kill bank tellers. But this analogy fails. ATMs automated one task. AI automates cognition itself — pattern recognition, decision-making, even emotional simulation. We’re not replacing fingers; we’re replacing minds.

And when they say, “Let’s invest in retraining instead,” I ask: retrain for what? When AI tutors outperform teachers, when legal bots draft contracts faster than lawyers, how many “new roles” will absorb millions displaced across sectors?

We don’t reject human agency — we redefine it. Not as grind, but as choice. Not as survival, but as contribution. The future isn’t about doing more jobs — it’s about asking better questions. And UBI gives people the breathing room to ask them.

So yes, the status quo is unsustainable. But so is waiting until the ship sinks before building lifeboats.

Negative Second Debater Rebuttal

Thank you.

The first speaker for the Affirmative painted a noble picture — humans liberated by machines, flourishing in art and care, funded by algorithmic abundance. Poetic, yes. Practical? No.

They respond to our fiscal concerns by waving a magic wand called “automation tax.” But where there’s no clear ownership of AI-generated value, how do you tax it? Does a customer service chatbot trained on user data owe royalties to every person who ever typed a complaint? That’s not policy — it’s science fiction.

And let’s examine their most dangerous assumption: that removing financial pressure automatically unlocks human potential. They point to Finland’s UBI trial — increased well-being, some entrepreneurial activity. But they omit the key finding: no significant change in employment levels — meaning most people didn’t start businesses, didn’t write novels, didn’t launch startups. Is that really the future we want? A society where contentment is bought, not built?

They accuse us of denying AI’s impact. We don’t. But we distinguish between disruption and destruction. Yes, AI changes work — but so did the printing press, the steam engine, the internet. Each time, we adapted — not by paying everyone to sit still, but by evolving skills, institutions, and incentives.

UBI treats symptoms while ignoring causes. Instead of asking, “How do we prepare people for the future?” they ask, “How do we compensate them for being left behind?” That’s not empowerment — it’s surrender.

And here’s what they never answer: if UBI is universal, why give it to billionaires? Elon Musk doesn’t need $1,000 a month — but under their plan, he gets it. Meanwhile, a single mother in Detroit gets the same amount, untaxed, untargeted. Is that justice — or absurdity?

Targeted transition programs — sector-specific reskilling, portable benefits, wage insurance — deliver more help to those who need it, at a fraction of the cost. Why flood the entire economy when we can build smart canals?

Finally, they dismiss our concern about work as outdated — as if identity, purpose, and social cohesion don’t matter. But anthropology, psychology, and history all agree: humans thrive on contribution, not just consumption. The !Kung people of the Kalahari share food freely — but still demand that every adult participate in gathering or hunting. Even in abundance, dignity comes from doing.

Remove that link, and you risk what psychiatrist Viktor Frankl warned: a society drowning in “existential vacuum” — technically secure, spiritually hollow.

We don’t fear progress. We demand better solutions. Not checks to replace jobs, but courage to reshape them. Not universal income, but universal opportunity.

That is the true response to AI — not retreat, but reinvention.

Cross-Examination

The cross-examination stage is where debate transforms from presentation to confrontation. Here, ideas are stress-tested under pressure, assumptions are exposed, and rhetorical elegance gives way to raw logical consistency. In a motion as consequential as "Should there be a universal basic income due to AI automation?", this phase becomes a battlefield of futures — one side defending human dignity amid disruption, the other warning against fiscal fantasy and cultural decay.

Each team’s third debater now steps forward: not to repeat, but to dissect; not to persuade gently, but to force admissions that reshape the entire landscape of the debate.

Affirmative Cross-Examination

Affirmative Third Debater:
Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have three questions — one for each of my counterparts on the negative side.

To Negative First Debater:
You claimed that AI creates new jobs just as past technologies did. But when ATMs automated cash handling, bank tellers shifted to customer service — a role requiring emotional intelligence. Now, AI chatbots handle customer complaints, diagnose medical symptoms, and draft legal briefs. If machines can perform cognitive and emotional labor — not just manual tasks — what category of human work remains immune to replacement, and how many millions can it realistically employ?

Negative First Debater:
While AI does encroach on cognitive domains, it still requires human oversight, training, and ethical governance. New roles in AI auditing, data curation, and human-AI collaboration are emerging rapidly. These aren’t niche positions — they’re scalable professions across industries.

Affirmative Third Debater:
So you admit AI eliminates core job functions but claim peripheral roles will absorb displaced workers? Then my second question —

To Negative Second Debater:
You dismissed our Finland UBI trial evidence by saying most recipients didn’t start businesses. But isn’t that missing the point? The trial showed reduced anxiety, better mental health, and more time spent on education and caregiving — contributions society needs but doesn’t pay for. If we value unpaid labor like parenting or eldercare, why do you treat not working as failure rather than freedom?

Negative Second Debater:
We don’t devalue care work — we support policies like paid family leave and subsidized childcare. But UBI funds everyone equally, including those who contribute nothing. It conflates support with indiscriminate distribution. Targeted programs deliver more impact per dollar.

Affirmative Third Debater:
Then let me ask my final question —

To Negative Fourth Debater:
You argue UBI is fiscally impossible without specifying what is possible. Suppose we implement a 5% tax on all revenue generated by fully autonomous systems — defined as AI operating without human intervention in decision loops. Given McKinsey estimates $13 trillion in AI-driven productivity gains by 2030, wouldn’t even a fraction of that cover a modest UBI? And if not, what concrete, scalable alternative do you propose for the 30% of workers whose jobs vanish in the next decade?

Negative Fourth Debater:
Hypothetical taxes on nebulous categories like “fully autonomous systems” collapse in practice. Who defines autonomy? How do you audit algorithmic profit attribution? Instead, we advocate wage insurance, sectoral retraining grants, and portable benefits tied to individuals, not jobs — practical tools already proven in pilot programs.

Affirmative Third Debater – Summary:
Ladies and gentlemen, the pattern is clear.

The negative side clings to historical analogies that fail in the age of artificial general intelligence. They dismiss well-being as irrelevant and redefine dignity as perpetual employment — even as the nature of work evaporates beneath our feet.

They reject funding mechanisms not because they’re unworkable, but because they’d rather preserve ideological purity than design solutions for unprecedented problems.

And critically, they offer no answer — only skepticism masked as prudence. No model, no scale, no timeline. Just faith in adaptation… while the ground shifts faster than anyone can retrain.

We asked: What jobs remain safe? They offered oversight roles — which AI itself may soon automate.

We asked: Why scorn freedom from desperation? They called it idleness — as if peace is laziness.

We asked: What’s your plan? They gave us buzzwords: “wage insurance,” “portable benefits” — Band-Aids on a hemorrhage.

If the future demands courage, then clinging to 20th-century fixes in the face of 21st-century disruption isn’t caution — it’s cowardice.

This isn’t policy. It’s procrastination.

And people won’t wait.

Negative Cross-Examination

Negative Third Debater:
Thank you.

I now pose three questions — directly to the affirmative team.

To Affirmative First Debater:
You compared UBI to Alaska’s oil dividend — a share of natural resource wealth. But oil is finite, publicly owned, and extracted under state license. Data, however, is generated daily by billions of users interacting with private platforms. If every person owns their digital footprint, does that mean Facebook must pay you every time its algorithm learns from your post? If so, how do you prevent infinite liability and economic paralysis?

Affirmative First Debater:
We’re not proposing retroactive micropayments. We advocate for a macro-level data dividend fund, similar to Norway’s sovereign wealth model — where companies pay into a public trust based on the scale and sensitivity of data used to train AI. This avoids litigation nightmares while ensuring broad compensation.

Negative Third Debater:
Interesting. Then my second question —

To Affirmative Second Debater:
You cited Manitoba and Finland trials showing improved well-being under UBI. But multiple studies also show that long-term unconditional cash transfers reduce workforce attachment over time — especially among young men. If UBI leads to a generation opting out of contribution altogether, isn’t that not liberation, but societal surrender — a quiet acceptance that humans are no longer needed?

Affirmative Second Debater:
That narrative ignores context. Declining labor force participation predates UBI — driven by rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and broken healthcare systems. UBI doesn’t cause disengagement; it reveals how alienating modern work has become. And in trials, most people continued working — they just gained the power to say no to exploitation.

Negative Third Debater:
Then one final question —

To Affirmative Fourth Debater:
You champion UBI as a “dividend on progress.” Yet your plan gives $1,000 a month to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos as much as to a homeless veteran. Isn’t that not justice, but absurdity? Wouldn’t a targeted guaranteed minimum income — phasing out at higher incomes — achieve the same safety net at half the cost and twice the efficiency?

Affirmative Fourth Debater:
Universality isn’t inefficiency — it’s solidarity. Just like public roads aren’t withheld from rich drivers, basic security shouldn’t be denied because someone else has more. And by the way, we can tax wealth at the top while providing UBI. It’s called policy design, not poetry reading.

Negative Third Debater – Summary:
Let us be clear about what just happened.

The affirmative team imagines a world where technology sets us free — but refuses to answer how we pay for it, who controls it, or what happens when people stop trying.

They wave away fundamental questions about implementation with poetic metaphors — “data as oil,” “UBI as dividend.” But metaphors don’t balance budgets. And when pressed, they retreat into idealism: “People won’t stop working!” But history shows otherwise — from Roman bread-and-circuses to modern disability dependency traps.

They defend giving money to billionaires not because it’s fair, but because it’s simple. Simplicity over sense.

And they reject targeted solutions not because they don’t work — they do — but because they fear losing political support. So instead of helping those in need, they flood the economy with cash, betting that some will rise while others drift.

But here’s the truth: compassion doesn’t require blindness.

We can acknowledge AI’s disruption without declaring human obsolescence.

We can protect vulnerable workers without dismantling the link between effort and reward.

We can innovate social policy without abandoning accountability.

The affirmative offers a utopia funded by wishful taxation and powered by magical thinking.

We offer realism. Responsibility. And resilience.

Because the future shouldn’t be bought — it should be built.

Free Debate

Affirmative First Debater:
You say people will stop working—but isn’t the real danger that they’ll keep working too much, chasing gigs on broken ladders? We’re not proposing laziness; we’re proposing liberation from desperation. If AI writes symphonies, why should humans still die in warehouses?

Negative First Debater:
Liberation? Or lobotomization? You call it freedom when someone gets paid to play video games all day while society crumbles around them. Work isn’t just survival—it’s how we learn discipline, build community, and earn respect. Take that away, and you don’t have utopia—you have daycare for adults.

Affirmative Second Debater:
Ah yes, the sacred altar of busyness. Forgive me if I don’t bow before the god of grind. Let me ask you: when an AI diagnoses cancer more accurately than doctors, do we really believe the solution is to retrain every radiologist to become… what, an AI trainer? Who trains the trainer when AI trains itself?

Negative Second Debater:
We don’t need everyone to be an AI trainer—we need smart transitions. But instead of investing in skills, you want to hand out checks like participation trophies. And let’s talk about those checks: $1,000 a month to Elon Musk. Is that your vision of justice? A socialist policy with capitalist beneficiaries?

Affirmative Third Debater:
Universal doesn’t mean unfair—it means inclusive. Just like public roads aren’t withheld from rich drivers, basic security shouldn’t be denied because someone else has more. And by the way, we can tax wealth at the top while providing UBI. It’s called policy design, not poetry reading.

Negative Third Debater:
“Policy design” that costs $4 trillion? That’s not design—that’s delusion. You wave away fiscal reality like a magician hiding rabbits. Where does the money come from? Oh right—magic automation taxes on profits no one can measure. Tell me, when AI makes a decision using decentralized data, who gets taxed? The server? The algorithm? The ghost in the machine?

Affirmative Fourth Debater:
Funny—you invoke ghosts, yet ignore the very real specter of mass displacement. Past tech shifts created new jobs because humans were cheaper than machines. But what happens when AI is cheaper and better? Retraining coal miners was hard. Retraining lawyers, artists, coders? That’s not reskilling—that’s denial.

Negative Fourth Debater:
So your answer is to give up on adaptation? History shows humans innovate faster when challenged, not coddled. When cars replaced horses, we didn’t pay stable boys to sit idle—we built auto schools. Now you say, “Just pay everyone and hope some write poetry”? That’s not a plan. It’s a prayer.

Affirmative First Debater (follow-up):
A prayer? No. A preemptive strike against chaos. Because when 40% of jobs vanish in two decades, waiting for “auto schools for algorithms” is like bringing a lifejacket after the ship sinks. Finland tried UBI—people didn’t quit work, they quit misery. Is that really so terrifying?

Negative First Debater (counter):
Finland also ended the trial early because it couldn’t scale it! Small pilots are nice—national policy is serious. You treat UBI like a startup beta test: launch fast, break things. But societies aren’t apps. When you break trust in effort, you break civilization.

Affirmative Second Debater (sharp turn):
Maybe the question today is not “What does life expect from me?” but “What chance does life give me?” When AI owns the means of production, and billionaires own the AI, shouldn’t everyone own a piece of the future?

Negative Second Debater (calmly):
And replacing wages with welfare is more dignified? Handing people cash with no expectation of contribution? Viktor Frankl survived Auschwitz asking, “What does life expect from me?” Now you suggest the answer is: nothing. Just collect your check and exist.

Affirmative Third Debater (emotionally resonant):
Maybe the question today is not “What does life expect from me?” but “What chance does life give me?” When AI owns the means of production, and billionaires own the AI, shouldn’t everyone own a piece of the future?

Negative Third Debater (firm closing):
Ownership comes through effort, not entitlement. We can democratize technology without abolishing responsibility. Let’s build inclusive innovation ecosystems—not dependency economies funded by fairy dust and futuristic fantasies.

Affirmative Fourth Debater (final jab):
Fairy dust? Or foresight? In 1900, giving women the vote seemed magical thinking too. Some ideas only look impossible until they’re inevitable. The age of artificial intelligence demands a new social contract. Don’t mourn the paycheck—imagine the possibility.

Negative Fourth Debater (last word):
And don’t confuse inevitability with intelligence. Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it should. Progress isn’t automatic—and neither is wisdom. Before we dismantle the engine of human striving, let’s make sure we’ve truly run out of fuel.

Closing Statement

In the final moments of a debate, we do not merely summarize—we synthesize. We rise above clash and counterpoint to ask: What kind of future are we choosing? The motion before us—Should there be a universal basic income due to AI automation?—is not just about policy. It is about identity, equity, and what we believe human life is worth when machines can do almost everything.

Both sides have offered visions: one of liberation through economic security, the other of resilience through earned contribution. Now, as we reach the end, each team delivers its final charge—not only to win the round, but to shape how we see the world after this moment.

Affirmative Closing Statement

We began this debate by asking you to imagine a world where algorithms write laws, diagnose diseases, and compose symphonies. That world isn’t coming—it’s already here. And yet, our economy still demands that people sell their time like relics from the industrial age.

We affirm that universal basic income must be implemented because AI automation has severed the link between labor and survival. This is not speculation—it is unfolding before our eyes. From self-checkout kiosks replacing cashiers to generative AI drafting legal briefs, the displacement is not sectoral; it is systemic. Unlike past technologies that augmented muscle, AI augments mind. And when cognition itself becomes automated, retraining alone cannot save us.

The opposition calls UBI fiscally impossible—but they forget that impossibility is a function of imagination, not arithmetic. When the digital economy generates trillions in value from data we all produce, why should that wealth concentrate in boardrooms while communities collapse? UBI is not welfare—it is a citizen’s dividend on the AI revolution, as rightful as Alaska’s oil check or a shareholder’s dividend.

They warn of laziness, yet every experiment—from Finland to Manitoba—shows the opposite: people stay in school longer, care for loved ones, start small businesses. They don’t vanish from society—they re-engage on their own terms. Is that idleness? Or is it freedom?

And let us confront their deepest assumption: that dignity comes only from paid work. But what of the parent raising a child? The artist painting in silence? The volunteer feeding the homeless? These contributions sustain civilization—but the market ignores them. UBI doesn’t devalue work; it expands our definition of value.

Yes, funding matters. But so does timing. Waiting until mass unemployment hits to act is like refusing vaccines during a pandemic because syringes are expensive. We need an economic immune system—one that anticipates shock, protects human dignity, and unleashes creativity.

This debate was never about whether people will work. It’s about whether they must starve if they can’t. In a world of robot landlords and algorithmic CEOs, we say: no more. No more tying existence to employment. No more letting progress enrich the few while displacing the many.

We stand not for handouts—but for fairness. Not for stagnation—but for evolution.
A future where technology serves humanity, not the other way around.
That future begins with universal basic income.

Negative Closing Statement

Let us speak plainly.

The affirmative team dreams of a world where everyone gets a check, machines do all the work, and humans float in blissful creativity. It sounds beautiful—like a sci-fi utopia. But dreams don’t pay taxes. And reality has a way of shattering illusions.

We oppose universal basic income driven by AI fears because it is a solution built on three false assumptions: that mass joblessness is inevitable, that money alone creates meaning, and that giving everyone cash is simpler than helping those who need it most.

First, history teaches us that technological disruption sparks transformation—not termination. The printing press didn’t end literacy; it spread it. Computers didn’t eliminate office workers; they redefined them. Yes, AI changes jobs. But it also creates new roles in ethics, training, maintenance, and design. The answer isn’t to assume defeat and distribute checks—it’s to invest in agility, education, and mobility.

Second, the idea that UBI “frees” people ignores the psychology of purpose. Viktor Frankl survived Auschwitz and wrote: “Success and happiness cannot be pursued—they must ensue.” Meaning comes not from leisure, but from contribution. Remove the need to strive, and you risk creating a generation that sleeps well—but wakes up wondering why.

Third, and most critically: UBI is economically absurd. Giving $1,000 a month to billionaires and baristas alike isn’t justice—it’s recklessness. For less than half the cost, we could fund targeted reskilling programs, portable benefits, wage insurance, and regional transition funds. Why drown the entire economy in cash when precision tools exist?

The affirmative says, “Tax the robots!” But how? Who owns AI profits—the coder, the company, the user whose data trained it? Their “automation dividend” is a metaphor dressed as policy. And when inflation follows massive monetary injection, it won’t be the tech elite who suffer—it will be the very people UBI claims to protect.

We do not deny AI’s power. But we reject technological determinism—the belief that because something can happen, it must. Humans are not passive victims of progress. We shape it. We guide it. We demand it serve us—not replace us.

Instead of writing checks to soothe guilt, let us build systems that empower. Let us shorten the workweek. Redesign apprenticeships. Reward lifelong learning. Strengthen communities. Let us prepare people not to survive the future—but to lead it.

Because the greatest danger isn’t losing our jobs.
It’s losing our sense of self.
And once that’s gone, no amount of free money can bring it back.

We don’t fear AI.
We fear what happens when we stop believing in ourselves.

That is why we stand firmly against universal basic income as a response to AI automation.