I don't have a particularly strong opinion about UBI. I'm dubious but I'll follow where the data lead on that. The data I've seen so far seems to indicate it's a well intentioned but flawed idea that doesn't really work but I'm open to being proven wrong.
BUT I've listened to Yang speak and his entire argument for UBI is based on a false premise and false narrative, namely that automation is coming to take all our jobs. He argued that we've lost huge numbers of jobs in the US to automation in manufacturing which is to be blunt, mostly false. The manufacturing jobs that left the US left because they were for labor intensive work and US labor rates were too high to be competitive. Automation is actually what has kept US manufacturing jobs. The US has a thriving manufacturing sector (about $3 Trillion/year) but not in products that requires rock bottom labor prices like those in China or similar. Automation is not going to make most of these jobs disappear any time soon purely because the economics of automation don't work like he claims. And even when it does displace workers from one role it simply frees up labor to do work that wasn't previously possible. We no longer need huge secretarial pools at large companies and yet somehow we still find employment for all the women who used to do that work.
Automation does constrain labor costs but labor also constrains automation. And there are various conditions that are required for automation to make economic sense. Here are some key ones though not an exhaustive list:
1) Relatively high labor rates and/or low labor content
2) Sufficient product volume or high enough cost to justify the capital equipment and/or engineering overhead
3) Predictable product demand for a consistent product
4) Dangerous work where involving humans directly is a bad idea
Products with high labor content or significant product variation or low volumes tend to be un-economical to automate. Despite all their flaws, people are incredibly flexible, smart, trainable and (frequently) cheap. We are in no danger of developing machines that will make people economically nonviable. Don't believe the hype. Automation will affect the jobs we have and it will create ones we have trouble even imagining today. Most of you reading this are doing jobs that literally would not exist if it weren't for automation. (what do you think computers do after all?)
ANYTIME you see a politician arguing that they are "going to bring back good paying manufacturing jobs", they are talking out their ass. It means they either don't know what they are talking about or they are lying. To bring back those jobs would require dropping US labor pay rates to something like $2-3/hour. That sound like a good idea to anyone you know?
Now I'm sure some of you are thinking "what about drivers or white collar jobs or...?" Same arguments apply. Automation will supplement, augment, and sometimes replace work that isn't value added any more. But it isn't going to cause some sort of jobs apocalypse. Yes some people will get displaced just like they always have but we know how to deal with that problem. We probably don't really want people driving - it's dangerous and frankly a waste of a perfectly good brain. Accountants didn't lose their jobs because they got clever computer programs that took over the bulk of the calculation work. Secretaries are still needed despite the typewriter being replaced by computers. Doctors aren't in any danger of being replaced by computers. Lawyers actually desperately need computers to help them go through all the documents they deal with. Etc. And despite what you have heard, manufacturing still employs vast numbers of people and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.