[The Editors' Verdict] Basic Income and AI

Let's say you receive 1.4 million won every month. Unconditionally. You could buy Samsung Electronics stocks, invest in Bitcoin, or enjoy an omakase meal at a trendy Instagram 'hot place.' If you were unhappy with your current job, you could take this opportunity to resign and have the leisure to find a job you truly want. To help your household finances even a little, you might quit the part-time job you dragged yourself to after getting tired.

But what about in reality? The results of a large-scale project, inspired by the idea of Sam Altman, the founder of OpenAI who developed ChatGPT, were released on the 22nd. It was a basic income experiment conducted over three years with a budget of 60 million dollars (about 83 billion won). The experiment divided participants into a treatment group receiving 1,000 dollars (about 1.4 million won) per month and a control group receiving 50 dollars (about 70,000 won) per month. The results were surprising. The treatment group worked 1.3 to 1.4 hours less per week than the control group. This corresponds to a 4 to 5% decrease in income. Interestingly, the partners (spouses, cohabitants, etc.) of the treatment group also reduced their labor participation by a similar amount. The income reduction effect was 20 cents per 1 dollar of basic income, which the researchers described as a "significant effect."

What about the quality of employment? With the extra 1,000 dollars, did people gain more bargaining power to avoid exploitative bosses or companies and find better jobs? No. There was no noticeable qualitative change in jobs. The reduced working hours were replaced by leisure time. Time spent using transportation increased, which is also presumed to be for engaging in other activities.

It was also expected that increased income from basic income would lead to more time spent caring for children, but this prediction was off. Childcare time actually decreased. There were some hopeful results: basic income stimulated 'entrepreneurial spirit,' increasing intentions related to starting businesses, and younger participants invested more in education. Nevertheless, the researchers stated, "No remarkable effects were observed to offset the significant reduction in labor supply." This experiment clearly showed that basic income reduces labor supply.

The AI revolution heralds the 'end of labor.' Altman even proposed a plan to provide basic income through a cryptocurrency called Worldcoin in a future where human labor is replaced by AI. Supporting the largest basic income experiment in history was part of this background. The ongoing AI productivity revolution will further accelerate discussions about basic income and labor. More people will lose jobs, and inequality may deepen. One study projected the future class structure in 2090, predicting that 0.001% of entrepreneurs owning platforms will occupy the top class (Seoul National University Professor Yoon Yuki's team).

As AI evolves, the value of labor continues to decline. Speculation and get-rich-quickism are encouraged with the notion that 'earned income cannot beat financial income,' and alongside the rise of the FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early) movement, a culture that disparages and hates labor is taking root. Basic income also appears likely to support such a culture.

So far, we have asked AI countless questions. The number of human queries to ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and others is estimated to be hundreds of millions per day. Now, AI is asking humans. What is labor to you humans? And what should it be?