The article argues that AI is widening the gap between owners and workers: job searches are taking longer and wealth is concentrating among those closest to AI profits. It treats UBI as a partial safety net but warns that UBI alone can deepen power asymmetries between recipients and the policymakers who control the rules.

To reduce dependence on UBI, it proposes an Alaska Permanent Fund-style "AI dividend": governments pool part of the tax revenue already collected from AI-linked corporate profits and pay citizens equal annual shares. The goal is a stable, diversified fund that cannot be captured by any single company or elite. Open questions include what counts as an AI company and whether the program should be state or national. The author argues this shares AI gains without betting everything on UBI or reopening major tax fights.

It began with headlines.

“Amazon cuts 14,000 corporate jobs as spending on artificial intelligence accelerates.”

“Salesforce CEO: ‘I need less heads.’”

“Meta axes 600 roles amid AI expansion.”

Each announcement laced with brutal irony, revealing companies not in distress but actually flourishing through the very mechanisms that deemed their hires expendable. Fair is fair, though, right? Nothing illegal happened, and technically this is an expectation of the marketplace. So, one can only wish these families all the best… right?

Then came the tag: “AI and robots will replace all jobs,” making work essentially “optional, like growing your own vegetables.”