So, it begins. Barely half a year has passed since ChatGPT was unveiled to the world, and already people are losing their jobs to AI. In May alone, AI was responsible for 5% of all job losses, but that is small compared to what is coming: up to 300 million full-time jobs around the world could be eliminated by artificial intelligence in the next five years. It is predicted that 18% of work globally will be computerised, and that figure is skewed downwards by third world countries where it will be less impactful. In advanced nations, it is likely to be closer to 23%.
The argument that is often made here is that AI will create as many jobs as it replaces, so there won’t be any major long-term unemployment. But is that right? Sure, there will be new jobs building AI, but we are now falling in a sort of employment Darwinism – AI is complicated, and you need to be intellectual and educated to understand it. AI will be eliminating many jobs that are accessible for people who don’t possess the talent to work with it. It is narrowing the world of work where people with different aptitudes are going to find they simply don’t have a place anymore. It will also take over entry level jobs and internships that young people rely on to train and upskill. The concept of the career as we know it is in jeopardy.
So, we cannot deny that AI is going to change the world, and we cannot ignore it. The question is, what do we do to offset the inevitable unemployment or underemployment that is coming? Well, there is one proposed solution that’s getting some attention at the moment: let’s just give people money.
Universal Basic Income is an idea that has been floated for a long time. The concept is simple – every citizen, regardless of status or assets, will be given some money each month to cover their cost of living. It has been tried a few times before across the world, but now it will be tested in England for the first time. In a pilot scheme, a small control group of people will be paid £1,600 a month, which they can spend however they want. The experiment aims to see what impact it has on their quality of life, and how they change their habits as a result. Currently, the UK government has not indicated that it is even considering implementing UBI, but the unexpected results of the covid lockdowns, where furlough saw millions of people collecting a salary while doing no work, have moved the political goalposts sufficiently that it could be tenable. The question is, would it actually work?
On the face of it, UBI sounds like a good, if radical, solution to the threat of job elimination. If people have money, they will spend it. Not only will this be good for the individual, it will be good for the economy. Businesses rely on other people buying things from them; if nobody has any money to spend, the knock-on effect is disastrous. The economy’s strength relies on money flowing rapidly, so it seems logical that if UBI essentially keeps money circulating, it prevents economic backsliding.
However, once we start to look at this a little more closely, we see some issues arising. Firstly, not all jobs are going to be automated, and many of the jobs we can’t yet automate are jobs that nobody really wants to do. We don’t have machines that can replace waitresses or binmen, yet how many people would opt to take such a job if they didn’t have to? And that’s before we get to the more skilled jobs which still struggle to hire people due to the pressures of the profession, like veterinary and social workers. The counterargument here is that UBI is only enough to exist at a subsistence level, so if you have a desire to have a more exciting life then you’ll need to find at least a part time job, but that becomes self-defeating, because the whole presupposition of UBI is that you can’t find a job.
That leads onto the second problem – UBI would only be enough to stop people starving or becoming homeless, but not much more than that. So, the economy would still stagnate. It would be a safety net, but not enough to live comfortably, and would in fact create a new impoverished underclass, people with little hope of ever having more than a hand-to-mouth existence. And here’s the real kicker: being poor actually affects your decision-making abilities. People with low incomes live in a scarcity mindset, meaning they are only focused on immediate goals. They are less likely to save money, and more likely to waste it on fleeting gratification such as alcohol. They are also less likely to perceive that their actions will affect how their lives turn out, leading to more irresponsible choices. This would create a feedback loop of bad decision making and regression to a less integrated and well-functioning society. There would be an untenable wealth gap between those who control the means of production and those relying on UBI handouts to get by.
So, UBI sounds like a nice idea, but unfortunately it’s just not going to work in reality. But what is the answer? Well, the cause of the problem is also the solution: AI. Artificial intelligence is a lot more than something that automates labour; it’s a revolutionary concept that will fundamentally alter the way we understand the world. It’s already being used to find a cure for cancer and invent new forms of clean and renewable energy. There is no reason why AI couldn’t also be applied to ergonomics and macroeconomics to find a solution to the coming job apocalypse. It will probably involve completely changing the way we structure our economy and understand concepts of scarcity and consumerism, but ultimately AI will be able to solve the problems it creates.
We at Sypher believe in the positive power of AI. We are already developing new and exciting ways to implement change that will drive growth for everyone, and create new opportunities that right now seem like a far off dream. As the rising tide lifts all boats, the rise of AI should improve all our lives. So, if you’re feeling a growing sense of dread at what the future holds, don’t worry – the best is yet to come!
