This summer, a remarkable new type of hotel opened up in Nagasaki, Japan. The Henn-na Hotel is one that is staffed mostly by robots. Artificial intelligence-backed bots (including a mechanical dinosaur) work the front desk, greeting and checking in guests. Others are deployed as cleaners and porters throughout the accommodations.

While this might seem a bit futuristic now, the reality is that more robots will be coming for our jobs in the years ahead. We are, after all, currently on the cusp of a “Second Machine Age,” powered by automation, artificial intelligence and robotics. Already, automated checkout technology has replaced cashiers, and computerized check-in is the norm at airports. Siri seems to be getting smarter by the day, evolving into a full-fledged digital assistant. And you can pick up a robot that will vacuum your house for a few hundred bucks at Best Buy.

Not convinced that robots are for real? Of 1,896 prominent scientists, analysts and engineers surveyed for a recent Pew report on the future of jobs, 48 percent already “envision a future in which robots and digital agents have displaced significant numbers of both blue- and white-collar workers.” Among the most vulnerable groups: professional drivers like truckers and taxi drivers. By 2020, GM, Mercedes, Audi, Nissan, BMW, Renault, Tesla and Google all plan to be selling autonomous vehicles in some form. Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick has already mentioned plans for one day replacing all of the company’s drivers with self-driving cars.

It doesn’t end there, however. White-collar roles once thought to be the exclusive domain of people may also end up on the chopping block. The first to go, according to experts surveyed, include paralegals, bookkeepers, transcriptionists and medical secretaries. The widespread use of DIY tax and finance software and automatic transcription tools like Siri only hints at changes to come in these sectors. Importantly, many of these jobs aren’t just repetitive, mechanical functions. They require an ability to learn and adapt to new information. And this is precisely why the coming AI revolution is so scary.

I’ve seen how quickly new job roles can appear (and disappear) even in my own sector: social media. Just a few years ago, “social media manager” was one of the most in-demand job functions on the career site Indeed.com. Then social media management tools—including those made by my company, Hootsuite—became more widespread and easy to use. For many businesses, ever-more-sophisticated technology has transformed social media from a discrete job to something that people across an organization can do.

So should we panic or sit back and let the robots do their thing? What seems abundantly clear is that the same jobs that support millions of people today may not be here in 10 or 20 years. The most sensible option would seem to be to start taking steps now to prepare for future job displacement. But how?

The traditional answer has been to invest in developing skills that machines can’t replicate—creativity, problem solving, ingenuity and other higher-order functions. Reinvent our current education system. Nurture exceptionalism and actively cultivate some of our last uniquely human abilities. But here’s the thing: That might not be enough. Promoting creativity and encouraging independent thinking might help us stay ahead of job losses in the short term. But in the long term, advanced robots may well be able to execute even some of these uniquely "human" functions better than we can. How do we keep the economy humming when jobs themselves have grown obsolete? How do people support themselves?

The scale of this problem may actually require some radical, surprising solutions—like giving money away. A growing chorus of tech experts, from all-star investor Marc Andreessen to Barack Obama’s one-time director of analytics Jim Pugh, have proposed the idea of “living income.” Not welfare or charity, living income is like an allowance for grownups—roughly enough to live on with few frills—paid to every adult in the country, whether they’re working or not. In the U.S., numbers thrown around have averaged from $15,000-$20,000 per adult per year.

Let’s get past the obvious reactions to this idea: that giving away money is crazy; that the whole scheme would permanently destroy the economy; and so on. Why might the concept of living income actually make sense? For starters, in a world where AI and robotics have made unemployment the norm, not the exception, people still need to eat. They still need to support their families. Deeper still, they need a reason to remain invested in the idea of society. Leaving the masses displaced by new technology to their own devices—jobless and destitute—is hardly a recipe for a bright future.

Living income also allows us to keep the wheels of the economy—and innovation—turning. In the new millennium, technology has generated enormous wealth for innovators and entrepreneurs. This has fed a virtuous cycle, with returns invested in developing newer and better technologies. (This same cycle, it should be said, has also had the not-so-virtuous effect of concentrating wealth in ever fewer hands.) But the whole process grinds to a halt in the absence of money to spend. Progress depends, in no small way, on people buying stuff. And that depends on them having an income.

Interestingly, the living income concept has its adherents on both sides of the political spectrum. Back in the day, both Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Nixon supported variations on the idea.

It won’t be easy, by any measure, but living income isn’t completely without precedent. During the 1970s, a five-year program in the Canadian province of Manitoba called Mincome showed promising results. Mothers spent more time raising children. Students showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. Hospital visits, mental illness, car accidents and domestic abuse cases all declined. And in the end, total working hours only slipped by a few percentage points. In other words, having a living income didn’t lead to sloth or indolence. It let people spend time on the things that mattered: family, education, health, personal fulfilment. If the robots do take our jobs one day—but give us back some of those things in return—it might not be such a bad trade after all.

*****

For a deeper dive into the rising challenges of the “Second Machine Age” and its possible outcomes, check out my recent article for Fast Company: “How to Plan Now For Tomorrow’s Robotic Workforce,” and let me know your thoughts.

Did you like this post? To read my weekly insights on social media, leadership, and tech trends, just click the 'follow' button at the top of this page.

Image: (bottom) Pal Robotics (top) "REEMS" by JosepPAL