1. The Idea That Could Change the Relationship Between Work and Money
For generations, the conventional economic model has been straightforward: people work, earn wages and use those wages to pay for housing, food, transport and other necessities. Government benefits provide additional support when people lose their jobs, become ill or face financial hardship.
But artificial intelligence is challenging assumptions about how people will earn a living in the future.
AI systems can already assist with writing, programming, research, customer service, administration and data analysis. Robotics and automation are also changing manufacturing, warehousing and logistics. These technologies could improve productivity, create new industries and reduce the cost of certain goods and services. They could also reduce demand for some types of human labour.
This raises an increasingly important question: what happens if an economy can produce more while some workers struggle to find secure employment?
One proposed answer is universal basic income, or UBI.
Under a traditional UBI model, the government provides regular cash payments to everyone within a defined population, regardless of employment status or income. Recipients can continue working, earn additional money and decide how to spend their payments without having to satisfy work-search conditions.
The concept challenges the idea that access to a basic income should depend primarily on employment or demonstrated financial need.
It also raises difficult questions about taxation, public spending, personal responsibility and the distribution of wealth created by technology.
UBI is not an established solution to AI-related disruption. However, as governments consider how to prepare for technological change, the debate over unconditional income support is likely to remain relevant.
2. What Exactly Is Universal Basic Income?
Universal basic income is a regular payment made to individuals without means-testing or employment conditions. A fully universal scheme would cover everyone within its defined population, although proposals differ over whether children, residents without citizenship and other groups would qualify.
Three characteristics distinguish a conventional UBI from many existing welfare programmes.
Universal: Payments go to everyone who meets the scheme's residency or eligibility rules, rather than only people below an income threshold.
Unconditional: Recipients do not have to prove that they are unemployed, actively searching for work or meeting other behavioural requirements.
Regular: Payments arrive on a recurring schedule, usually monthly, rather than as a one-off grant.
The amount is another important consideration. A modest payment might help cover everyday expenses but would not replace a salary. A generous payment could provide greater financial security but would be substantially more expensive for governments to fund.
UBI also does not necessarily mean abolishing every existing benefit. Governments could retain additional support for disability, housing, childcare and other needs that a flat payment would not adequately cover.
The distinction matters because a universal payment and a comprehensive welfare system are not interchangeable.
A person with high care needs, for example, may require considerably more support than someone without those needs. A flat payment would treat both people equally in terms of the universal component, but it would not necessarily address their different costs of living.
Consequently, the practical question is not simply whether everyone should receive money. It is how universal payments would interact with existing benefits, public services and the tax system.
3. Why Artificial Intelligence Has Reignited the Debate
The renewed interest in UBI is closely connected to concerns about artificial intelligence and automation.
Previous technological revolutions eliminated certain jobs while creating new industries and occupations. Mechanisation transformed agriculture, industrial machinery changed manufacturing, and computers reshaped office work. These transitions created economic disruption, but they also generated new forms of employment.
AI could follow a similar pattern, although its effects may differ because it can perform or assist with a wider range of cognitive tasks.
The International Monetary Fund estimated in 2024 that almost 40% of global employment was exposed to AI, rising to around 60% in advanced economies.[1] Exposure does not mean that these jobs will disappear. It means that AI could affect a meaningful proportion of their tasks, either by automating them or helping workers perform them more efficiently.
More recent analysis from the International Labour Organization and World Bank, published in March 2026, also highlights how generative AI could affect countries differently depending on their industries, digital infrastructure and workers' skills.[2]
Some businesses may use AI to expand production and employ more people in complementary roles. Others may need fewer workers for particular tasks. New occupations could emerge, while demand for some existing roles declines.
The timing and scale of these changes remain uncertain.
UBI advocates argue that if technological progress increases economic output while weakening some workers' bargaining power or employment opportunities, governments may need new ways to distribute income.
Critics respond that technological disruption does not automatically justify permanent cash payments to everyone. They argue that education, retraining, job creation and targeted support could address many of the same challenges at lower public cost.
The central debate is whether AI will require a fundamental change to social security or whether existing institutions can adapt sufficiently.
4. The UK Faces a Difficult Question: Who Pays?
For Britain, a nationwide UBI would represent a major change to the public finances.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies examined the economics of UBI in September 2025. It estimated that paying every working-age adult approximately £400 per month — broadly matching the basic rate of Universal Credit at the time of its analysis — would cost more than £200 billion annually before taking account of how the scheme was financed.[3]
That figure illustrates the scale of the challenge. It is a gross payment estimate, not a final estimate of the net cost after taxes, benefit changes or behavioural effects.
A government could not evaluate a UBI proposal simply by multiplying a monthly payment by the number of recipients. It would also need to account for eligibility rules, administrative costs, existing benefits and the way the payments were taxed.
Nevertheless, even a relatively modest universal payment would require substantial funding.
Possible approaches include:
Raising income tax or National Insurance contributions.
Increasing consumption taxes such as VAT.
Reforming existing benefits and tax allowances.
Taxing some forms of capital income or wealth more heavily.
Using revenue from public assets or natural resources.
Introducing a combination of tax changes and spending reforms.
Every option creates trade-offs.
Higher taxes could reduce disposable income for some households and affect incentives to work, save or invest. Reducing existing benefits could leave some vulnerable people worse off, particularly those with disabilities or high housing costs. Borrowing to fund permanent payments could increase pressure on public finances.
Taxing the profits of highly automated businesses is sometimes proposed as a way to fund UBI. However, defining and measuring an appropriate tax base would be difficult, and excessive taxes on investment could discourage the very productivity gains policymakers hope to capture.
The question is therefore not only whether Britain could introduce UBI. It is which combination of taxes, benefit reforms and other funding sources would make it sustainable and how the costs and benefits would be distributed.
5. Would UBI Replace Universal Credit?
One of the most important questions in the UK debate is how UBI would interact with Universal Credit.
Universal Credit is means-tested. Eligibility and payment amounts depend on a claimant's circumstances, including earnings, household composition and housing costs. Additional support may be available through other benefits and programmes.
UBI would work differently because eligible recipients would receive their payment regardless of whether they were employed or how much they earned.
Supporters argue that this could simplify parts of the welfare system. People would not have to repeatedly demonstrate low income to receive the universal payment, and additional earnings would not cause that payment to be withdrawn.
This could reduce some administrative complexity and make financial planning easier for people with variable earnings.
However, replacing existing benefits with a flat payment could create serious problems.
A person with substantial disability-related expenses, high eligible housing costs or children to support may receive more from the existing system than they would under a modest UBI.
Removing those benefits without providing adequate replacement support could leave some households worse off, even if every adult received a universal payment.
Keeping existing benefits alongside UBI would protect more people from this risk, but it would also increase the total cost of the programme.
There is also a difference between gross and net payments. A high-income household might receive the same universal payment as everyone else but contribute more through taxation. Depending on the design, the scheme could therefore deliver a universal gross payment while redistributing income through the tax system.
The choice between replacing benefits and supplementing them would shape both the affordability and fairness of any UK proposal.
6. Would People Stop Working If They Received Free Money?
One of the most persistent criticisms of UBI is that unconditional payments could discourage employment.
If people received money regardless of whether they worked, some might choose to reduce their working hours, leave unpleasant jobs or spend more time on unpaid activities. Employers in some sectors might have to offer higher wages or better conditions to attract workers.
But this does not necessarily mean a UBI would cause a mass withdrawal from employment.
People work for many reasons beyond immediate financial necessity, including career progression, social connection, personal achievement and professional identity. A basic payment could also make it easier to accept a job with uncertain income, undertake training or start a business.
The empirical evidence does not support a simple conclusion that unconditional payments inevitably cause large reductions in employment.
A rapid evidence review of basic-income experiments in OECD countries found that employment effects were weak or statistically insignificant in most of the studies it examined. Many experiments were small, targeted and limited in duration, however, making it difficult to predict the effects of a permanent national scheme.[4]
Finland's 2017–2018 experiment provides a useful example. It paid 2,000 unemployed people €560 per month, regardless of whether they found work. The evaluation found small employment effects overall, alongside better reported financial security and mental wellbeing among recipients.[5]
The Finnish experiment was not a universal payment to the entire population. Its results therefore cannot establish exactly how a nationwide UBI would affect employment.
The distinction is important. A policy could have different effects on unemployed people, low-paid workers, high earners and people who already have secure jobs.
A properly designed programme would need to consider how payments interact with wages, taxes, housing costs and the availability of employment.
7. Could UBI Reduce Poverty and Financial Stress?
One of the strongest arguments for UBI is that a predictable income could help households manage everyday expenses.
People with low or unstable earnings often face difficult choices between rent, food, transport, energy bills and other essentials. A regular payment could provide a financial buffer when work hours fall, a contract ends or an unexpected bill arrives.
Because the payment would not depend on employment status, it could also reduce the uncertainty associated with fluctuating earnings.
However, the amount matters enormously.
A payment of £100 per month could provide useful assistance but would not eliminate poverty for most households. A much larger payment might have a greater effect on living standards but would require significantly more funding.
The interaction with other benefits is equally important. If a universal payment replaced more generous targeted support, some households could lose out. If it supplemented existing support, the programme could be more protective but considerably more expensive.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of guaranteed basic-income interventions in high-income countries found some evidence of benefits for particular poverty-related outcomes, including food security and subjective financial wellbeing. However, the authors emphasised that the evidence remains limited and varies across programme designs.[6]
This suggests that unconditional cash support can help in some circumstances, but it does not establish that every UBI proposal would reduce poverty effectively.
Housing affordability also presents a particular challenge. If rents and other essential costs rise faster than incomes, a universal payment may provide only temporary relief. Where housing supply is constrained, some of the additional purchasing power could also be reflected in higher rents over time.
UBI may therefore be one potential part of an anti-poverty strategy, but it cannot replace effective housing policy, healthcare, education and targeted assistance for people with greater needs.
8. The Welsh Basic-Income Pilot: A Real-World UK Experiment
Britain has already conducted a significant experiment in unconditional income support.
In July 2022, the Welsh Government launched a basic-income pilot for young people leaving care. Eligible participants were offered £1,600 per month before tax for 24 months after turning 18.
The programme was designed to provide financial stability during a period when young people may be transitioning to independent living, education or employment.
According to a Welsh Government statement published in February 2026, 644 eligible young people — approximately 97% of the eligible cohort — chose to participate.[7]
The pilot is particularly relevant because care-experienced young people can face challenges involving housing, education, employment and access to reliable support networks.
An unconditional payment may give recipients greater flexibility to manage rent, travel, training and other essential expenses. It can also provide a degree of security while they make decisions about their future.
However, the pilot is not equivalent to a nationwide UBI. It targeted a specific group, operated for a limited period and included a payment much larger than many proposed universal schemes.
The Welsh Government's comprehensive evaluation continues into 2027, with the final report expected in the summer of that year.[7]
Until the evaluation is complete, it would be premature to treat the pilot as definitive evidence that a national UBI would deliver the same results.
Its findings may nevertheless help policymakers understand how unconditional payments affect young people's experiences, financial choices and transitions into adulthood.
9. What Happens When AI Creates More Wealth but Fewer Opportunities?
The UBI debate is not just about unemployment. It is also about who benefits when technology makes businesses more productive.
Suppose an AI system allows a company to produce the same output with fewer working hours. The company may benefit from lower costs, higher margins or the ability to expand into new markets.
Workers could also benefit if the gains translate into higher wages, shorter working weeks, better services or lower prices.
But the benefits are not automatically distributed equally.
If productivity gains primarily increase profits and the value of assets owned by a relatively small group of investors, wealth inequality could widen even while the economy grows.
The IMF's research on AI and the future of work has highlighted this risk, noting that AI adoption could increase capital income and exacerbate inequality if the gains are concentrated among those who own the technology.[1]
UBI advocates argue that a share of these gains could be redistributed through taxation and universal payments.
Under such a model, the public would receive some financial benefit from the productivity of the wider economy, rather than relying entirely on individual wages.
However, this raises a difficult question: should governments distribute the gains through a universal cash payment, or should they focus on public services, education, wage subsidies and targeted support?
The answer depends partly on the nature of the disruption. If technology creates widespread and prolonged income insecurity, universal payments might provide a useful stabilising mechanism. If the main challenge is a shortage of particular skills or a temporary transition between jobs, retraining and employment support may be more effective.
AI does not automatically make UBI necessary. It does, however, make the distribution of future productivity gains an increasingly important economic question.
10. Could Governments Tax AI and Robots to Fund UBI?
The idea of an automation tax has attracted attention as a possible way to fund social protection in a more automated economy.
The basic argument is straightforward: if businesses replace human labour with machines or AI systems and generate substantial savings, governments could tax some of those gains to support people whose earnings are affected.
The practical design is much more complicated.
What exactly would count as an automated job? Would a company be taxed for using software that helps a worker complete tasks faster? Would the tax apply to robots, AI subscriptions, capital equipment or profits? And how would policymakers distinguish genuine labour substitution from ordinary investment that increases productivity?
A poorly designed tax could discourage businesses from adopting technologies that improve efficiency, including tools that help workers rather than replace them.
It could also encourage companies to move investment to jurisdictions with lower taxes, depending on the rules and international coordination.
An alternative would be to tax profits or capital income more broadly rather than targeting AI technology directly. Governments could then use some of the revenue to fund income support, education or transition assistance.
Another possibility is a public investment fund that owns a diversified portfolio of productive assets and distributes part of its returns to citizens. Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend is a partial example of a public-resource dividend, although it is not a full UBI and does not replace the wider welfare system.[3]
Each approach raises questions about revenue stability, investment incentives and who owns the assets generating the income.
If AI creates substantial economic value, there may be opportunities to share some of those gains. But a sustainable funding mechanism would need to work even when technology-sector profits fluctuate or the economy enters a downturn.
11. Could UBI Encourage Entrepreneurship and Innovation?
A universal payment might also change how people approach work and business creation.
Starting a business often involves uncertain earnings, upfront expenses and a period in which revenue may be low or nonexistent. People with limited savings may be unable to take that risk because they need to cover essential living costs.
A predictable income could provide a modest safety net while someone develops a product, learns a skill or tests a business idea.
It could also help freelancers and self-employed people manage irregular cash flow. Rather than relying entirely on the next contract, they would have a stable baseline payment.
Supporters argue that this could encourage experimentation and allow people to leave unsuitable jobs in favour of more productive opportunities.
However, a basic payment would not remove the other barriers to entrepreneurship. Businesses still need customers, capital, knowledge, infrastructure and time to become profitable.
The size of the payment would also matter. A small UBI might provide limited protection, while a larger scheme would require more substantial tax revenue.
It is also uncertain whether recipients would invest additional income in businesses, save it, spend it on essentials or use it for other purposes. These outcomes would vary across individuals and economic conditions.
The most plausible case is that UBI could reduce one particular barrier — the risk of losing all income while making a transition — rather than guarantee a wave of successful startups.
12. The Risk of Inflation and Higher Living Costs
One concern is that distributing additional cash could increase demand for goods and services faster than businesses can expand supply.
If households have more disposable income, they may spend more on food, transport, entertainment and other essentials. Where supply is constrained, increased demand could put upward pressure on prices.
Housing is a particularly important example. If a UBI increased the purchasing power of renters but housing supply failed to respond, rents could absorb some of the benefit.
However, inflation is not an automatic consequence of UBI.
The outcome would depend on how the scheme was funded, how much new spending it generated, whether existing benefits or other spending were changed, and whether the economy had spare capacity.
A programme financed by higher taxes could redistribute purchasing power rather than simply add an equivalent amount of new demand. Its effects would also differ depending on which taxes were raised and which households received the payments.
A UBI introduced during a recession could have different consequences from one introduced when the economy was already operating near capacity.
Policymakers would need to assess these factors rather than assume that either inflation or economic growth would inevitably follow.
The key issue is whether the programme increases the economy's ability to supply goods and services alongside demand, and how the resulting costs and benefits are distributed.
13. Would UBI Change People's Attitudes Towards Work?
A universal payment could influence how people think about employment, although the direction and scale of any change are uncertain.
Some recipients might reduce their working hours to care for children or relatives, study, volunteer or pursue creative activities. Others might use the additional security to search for better jobs, retrain or establish businesses.
The effect would likely vary according to the payment's size, household circumstances, job opportunities and the availability of public services.
Paid employment is not the only activity that contributes to society. Unpaid caregiving, community support and volunteering can provide considerable social value, even though they are not always reflected in measures of economic output.
A UBI could make it easier for some people to undertake these activities without experiencing an immediate loss of income.
However, there are potential disadvantages. Employers in sectors with difficult working conditions may need to improve pay or job quality to attract staff. That could be beneficial for workers but could also raise costs for businesses and consumers.
There is also a risk that policymakers overestimate the freedom a payment provides. A modest monthly amount would not necessarily allow someone to stop working, particularly in an area with high housing and living costs.
The debate should therefore distinguish between reducing the financial pressure to accept any available job and removing the incentive to work altogether. These are not the same thing.
14. The Biggest Problem: A Small Payment May Not Be Enough
UBI proposals often face a difficult trade-off between generosity and affordability.
A small universal payment would be easier to fund than a large one, but it might not provide enough income to transform people's financial security.
A more generous payment could offer meaningful protection against poverty or employment disruption, but the total annual cost would rise substantially.
This is particularly important in countries with established welfare systems. Replacing existing benefits with a flat payment may reduce the cost, but it could leave people with higher needs worse off. Keeping the existing support system would protect more people but require additional revenue.
There is also a difference between universal eligibility and universal benefit in net terms.
If every adult receives a payment but higher-income recipients pay more tax, the government can recover some or all of the payment from wealthier households through the tax system. This can make the distributional outcome more progressive, but it does not eliminate the need to administer and finance the scheme.
A practical proposal must therefore specify the payment amount, eligibility rules, treatment of children, tax arrangements, interaction with existing benefits and protection for people with additional needs.
Without these details, claims that UBI is either affordable or impossible are incomplete.
The real debate is about which version of UBI is being proposed, what it would replace or supplement, and who would ultimately pay for it.
15. What Could Replace UBI If a Full Scheme Is Too Expensive?
UBI is not the only policy available to governments concerned about automation and income insecurity.
One alternative is a guaranteed minimum income, which tops up the incomes of people below a defined threshold. Unlike a fully universal payment, it directs more public money towards those who need it most.
Another is a negative income tax, under which eligible households receive a payment through the tax system when their income falls below a certain level. Depending on the design, support gradually decreases as earnings rise.
Governments could also expand wage subsidies, strengthen unemployment insurance, provide retraining grants or offer temporary income support to workers affected by major technological changes.
A shorter working week is another possibility. If productivity rises, businesses and policymakers could explore whether some of the gains can be shared through reduced working hours rather than exclusively through higher output or profits.
Public investment in childcare, housing, transport, healthcare and education could also improve financial security without giving every person the same cash payment.
These approaches have different costs and limitations. Targeted programmes require eligibility rules and administration, while universal payments require a broader funding base. Wage subsidies depend on the availability of suitable employment, and retraining cannot guarantee that every displaced worker will find an equivalent job.
A combination of policies may ultimately prove more suitable than relying on a single instrument.
The choice should depend on the specific problem policymakers are trying to solve: poverty, volatile income, structural unemployment, weak wages or an unequal distribution of technological gains.
16. Three Possible Futures for Universal Basic Income
The future of UBI will depend on technological change, public finances, political choices and the results of further research.
Scenario One: Targeted Support Remains the Main Approach
Governments strengthen existing benefits, improve access to retraining and provide temporary assistance to workers affected by AI. Universal payments remain limited to specific experiments or targeted groups.
This approach would preserve the principle of directing public funds towards people with greater financial needs, although it would retain the administrative complexity associated with means-testing.
Scenario Two: A Partial Basic Income Emerges
Some governments introduce modest universal payments or broaden existing cash-transfer programmes. The payments supplement employment income and existing services rather than replace them entirely.
Funding might come from a mixture of taxation, benefit reform and revenue from public assets. The scheme could provide a baseline of security without attempting to replace wages or the entire welfare system.
Its effectiveness would depend on the payment level, tax design and interaction with other support.
Scenario Three: A Larger Universal Income Becomes Part of the Social Contract
If AI and automation produce substantial and sustained changes in employment and income distribution, governments may face pressure to distribute a larger share of economic gains through universal payments.
Such a system could require major changes to taxation, public spending and social security. It would also need a stable funding base capable of supporting payments through recessions and periods of lower government revenue.
This outcome would not follow automatically from technological progress. It would depend on public choices about redistribution, work, ownership and the role of the state.
The three scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Different countries could adopt different models, and policies could evolve gradually as evidence about AI's economic effects improves.
17. The Decision Facing Britain
For Britain, the immediate question is not whether AI will eliminate work altogether. It is how the country should respond if technology changes the types of jobs available, the skills employers require and the way income is distributed.
The UK government's assessment of AI and the labour market notes that many jobs contain tasks that AI could potentially perform or enhance, but it also cautions that exposure measures are not precise predictions of job losses.[8]
That distinction should guide the policy debate.
If AI improves productivity and creates new opportunities, the priority may be helping workers acquire relevant skills and ensuring that businesses invest in training and innovation.
If particular groups experience prolonged displacement, targeted income support, retraining and employment services may be needed.
If productivity gains become highly concentrated while wage income becomes less secure, policymakers may need to reconsider how taxation and social security distribute economic benefits.
UBI offers one possible response, but it would need to be assessed alongside alternative policies and the realities of the UK's public finances.
Any serious proposal should specify how much people would receive, how the scheme would be funded, which existing benefits would remain and how it would protect people with additional needs.
It should also be tested against different economic conditions, including recessions, inflation and periods when government revenue falls.
The most useful debate is not about whether UBI sounds attractive in principle. It is about whether a specific design would improve financial security at an acceptable cost, compared with the alternatives.
18. Conclusion: Could UBI Become Part of the Future of Work?
Universal basic income challenges a long-standing assumption that access to regular income should depend primarily on employment or demonstrated financial need.
Its appeal is clear. A predictable payment could help households manage unstable earnings, provide greater freedom to change careers and offer a measure of protection during technological transitions.
But the challenges are equally significant. A meaningful nationwide payment would require substantial funding, and the consequences would depend on how it interacted with taxation, existing benefits, housing costs and the labour market.
Evidence from Finland and other experiments suggests that unconditional payments do not inevitably produce large reductions in employment, while some studies report improvements in perceived financial security and wellbeing. However, the available research does not establish that a permanent, fully universal scheme would deliver the same results at national scale.[4][5][6]
The UK's own experience with the Welsh basic-income pilot may provide further insights, but its final evaluation is still expected in 2027.[7]
AI adds urgency to the discussion, but it does not settle it. Technology could displace some tasks, complement workers in others and create entirely new forms of employment. The eventual effects will depend on how businesses adopt AI, how quickly workers can adapt and how the resulting gains are distributed.
UBI may become one part of the debate over how society shares the benefits of automation, but it is not a substitute for sound economic policy.
The real challenge is to build an economy in which technological progress improves living standards broadly, while ensuring that people facing disruption have practical routes to financial security.
Whether that requires universal basic income, more targeted support or a combination of approaches will depend on evidence, affordability and the choices governments make.
Sources
[1] International Monetary Fund — Gen-AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/006/2024/001/article-A001-en.xml
[2] International Labour Organization — New ILO–World Bank Paper Highlights Uneven Global Impact of Generative AI on Jobs (27 March 2026) https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/new-ilo%E2%80%93world-bank-paper-highlights-uneven-global-impact-generative-ai-jobs
[3] Institute for Fiscal Studies — The Economics of a Universal Basic Income (3 September 2025) https://ifs.org.uk/articles/economics-universal-basic-income
[4] Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) — Basic Income Experiments in OECD Countries: A Rapid Evidence Review https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/publications/systematic-reviews/basic-income-experiments-in-oecd-countries
[5] Finnish Government — Results of the Basic Income Experiment: Small Employment Effects, Better Perceived Economic Security and Mental Wellbeing (6 May 2020) https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1271139/perustulokokeilun-tulokset-tyollisyysvaikutukset-vahaisia-toimeentulo-ja-psyykkinen-terveys-koettiin-paremmaksi?languageId=en_US
[6] Campbell Systematic Reviews — Effects of Guaranteed Basic Income Interventions on Poverty-Related Outcomes in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2024) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11180702/
[7] Welsh Government — Basic Income for Care Leavers in Wales Pilot Evaluation: Annual Report 2025–2026 (26 February 2026) https://www.gov.wales/written-statement-basic-income-care-leavers-wales-pilot-evaluation-annual-report-2025-2026
[8] UK Government — Assessment of AI Capabilities and the Impact on the UK Labour Market https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-of-ai-capabilities-and-the-impact-on-the-uk-labour-market/assessment-of-ai-capabilities-and-the-impact-on-the-uk-labour-market
Published by Banx Network. This article is part of the Banx decentralized media programme, powered by the BXE token on the XRP Ledger.
