Nobody Believes in UBI Until the Direct Deposit Hits
AIPeople often ask me about the future and Universal Basic Income. I can’t predict the future. But I’ve had a short answer for a long time: it won’t be a choice. Here’s why.
“UBI won’t be championed by idealists. It’ll be pushed through by the same people who swore it was impossible — right up until it started paying their bills.”
For decades, UBI was the ultimate political mirage — the moonshot economists debated, futurists blogged about, and politicians politely waved away. The problem wasn’t the math. It was the politics.
That shifts the moment the professional-managerial class — the donors, the opinion shapers, the “knowledge workers” — start feeling the squeeze they once observed from a safe distance.
Picture the moment a $200k/year strategy consultant realizes GPT-7 does their job better, faster, and without the lunch breaks. That’s when “handouts” quietly rebrand as “transitional support.”
And when that happens, the political calculus flips overnight.
UBI won’t start as UBI. It’ll be rolled out as a “temporary emergency measure,” a short-term patch to keep the middle class afloat. But political gravity will swell it. Institutional inertia will cement it. By 2032, we’ll have UBI in everything but name — even as politicians insist it’s just a stopgap, while campaigning on raising the monthly amount.
The irony? The loudest defenders of this “impossible” policy will be the same voices who spent thirty years insisting it could never happen. Not because they’ve embraced the theory — but because they’ve embraced the deposits.
UBI won’t arrive with a bang. It’ll arrive like a mountain: slow, silent, and immovable.
And once that mountain forms? Good luck moving it.
In August 2025, I wrote that universal basic income would not arrive as an ideological triumph. It would be pushed through as a "temporary emergency measure" — by the same people who spent thirty years insisting it was impossible, once they found themselves facing the pressure firsthand.
Six months later, you don't need AI to see this process already underway.
A new disability support system took effect on September 1, 2025. Disability status is now permanent — reassessment is no longer the norm. Partial disability recipients receive 82% of full benefits with a 350,000 ISK monthly earnings exemption. Combined payments from the Social Insurance Administration and pension funds can now equal prior wages in full. 12% of Iceland's working-age population is on disability or rehabilitation benefits — up from 6.3% in 2000 to 9.4% in 2024.
This is not a critique of those who depend on the system. It is an observation about the mechanics.
The system we are building — where basic income is guaranteed, reassessment has been removed, and labour market participation is not always the financially rational choice — is precisely the process I described. Not universal basic income in name, but universal basic income in substance.
The mountain is forming. Quietly.

If it is considered administrative malpractice to use Claude to judge the contribution of scholars, why is it considered "academic integrity" to use Turnitin to judge the originality of a student?

A recent incident in Iceland reveals dangerous flaws when AI like Claude assesses human contribution without understanding. AI is powerful but shouldn't judge careers. The article is based entirely on public media coverage and does not assume that all facts of the case are fully known.

A recent global report from KPMG and the University of Melbourne (Trust, attitudes and use of artificial intelligence: A global study 2025) confirms a troubling trend: 70% of employees are now using free, public generative AI tools at work, while only 41% report their employer has any policy governing their use.