UBI Can't Stop an AI Power Grab, Critics Say—Because 'Robot Owners' Control the Money

Britain is pushing aggressively into the world of AI. The pressing question is: who will ultimately benefit from the gains?

Downing Street affirms it will proceed with all 50 recommendations in its AI Opportunities Action Plan, including the establishment of AI Growth Zones and a substantial expansion of public compute capacity, after private firms committed £14 billion and created 13,250 jobs.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) has re-entered the conversation amid this AI surge, reviving longstanding fears that automation could hollow out employment. The argument echoes that of Andrew Yang, who has long championed his $1,000-a-month 'Freedom Dividend'.

Critics, however, contend that such financial handouts do not address the core issue in an AI-driven economy. The real power and wealth are concentrated among those who own the machines, and any meaningful redistribution would require taxing these owners heavily.

Britain Is Building AI 'Growth Zones'—And a Bigger Compute State

The government's aim is for AI to 'turbocharge growth and boost living standards.' The plan also envisions AI integration across public services, from schools to infrastructure maintenance.

This ambition involves physical infrastructure. The government's strategy includes dedicated AI Growth Zones, designed to streamline planning permissions for AI infrastructure and connect these hubs to the energy grid.

Ministers have highlighted commitments of £14 and the creation of 13,250 jobs by firms involved in building AI infrastructure, including data centres.

The first Growth Zone is planned for Culham in Oxfordshire, with the government pledging to increase public compute capacity 'by twentyfold' to meet the country's processing power needs.

Alongside this expansion, the government's approach is pragmatic: 'scan' for viable ideas, 'pilot' them quickly, then 'scale' successful projects. This method prioritises speed over lengthy, small-scale trials that often languish within departments.

Universal Basic Income Sounds Simple—But the Maths Doesn't

Andrew Yang's proposal for a $1,000-a-month 'Freedom Dividend' is rooted in the fear that automation and AI will displace a significant number of workers—potentially one in three Americans over the next 12 years. He suggests funding this through a value-added tax (VAT), which is already used in 160 countries.

However, in a detailed analysis for The Guardian, Eduardo Porter argues that the numbers quickly become unmanageable. For example, a two-parent, two-child household relying solely on the Freedom Dividend would fall 25% below the poverty line. A UBI set at median earnings would cost over $14 trillion (£10.47 trillion) annually—about 45% of US GDP.

Porter questions whether a VAT makes sense in this context, describing it as 'ridiculous' to fund livelihoods through a tax on consumption in a world where work has largely disappeared.

Stanford's Human-Centred AI Institute (HAI) echoes these concerns: critics argue that guaranteed income schemes could reduce motivation to work, and that uniform payments are regressive, since higher earners also receive the same amount.

Who Controls the AI Upside?

Funding remains a concern, but control is perhaps the more significant issue. Porter warns that a true 'no work' AI economy might necessitate 'substantial taxation of the owners of the robots.'

This shift raises profound questions about power—specifically, who gets to decide how the benefits are distributed when a small elite owns the productive machinery?

He quotes Stanford economist Erik Brynjolfsson, who warns that 'most of us would depend precariously on the decisions of those in control of the technology,' risking 'an equilibrium where those without power have no way to improve their outcomes.'

In the UK, ministers promote a different narrative: the benefits of AI development will be shared 'throughout the UK' so 'all citizens will reap the rewards of the bet we make today.'

Compute Is Power

Porter's warning is less about the technology itself and more about influence—who controls the limited resource of compute power.

In Britain, ministers are attempting to democratise access to compute by combining the initiative of AI Growth Zones with plans to expand the AI Research Resource by at least 20 times by 2030.

If successful, this expansion will not only generate jobs but also enhance the state's capacity to direct AI development towards public priorities. It will shape which projects are built and scaled, strengthening government influence over the AI landscape.