People need more than just rent, and arguably landlords shouldn't be able to profit to the extent they do.

Here is a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots

Probably not the scale you imagine but there have been plenty of tests.

The minute you institute UBI, everyone working a shit, low paying job such as trash collection is gone. You're going to have big problems if those jobs are not immediately supplanted by AI

"no large scale test" seems false -- there have been several?

"Compatible with current version of captialism" -- the whole point of UBI is to create a new form of capitalism

> It is very much so complicated though. The conversations about UBI in the internet has been around since I’ve been online.

Polarizing doesn't mean complicated. There's people against it due to ignorance, greed of both, it's certainly not more complicated than that.

> And since then, there hasn’t been a single large scale test of the system to see if it can be compatible with the current version of capitalism that’s ran in the most of the world.

Because people keep fighting against it, because it's scary scary sOcIaLiSm.

> Even if I support UBI morally

As you should, there are no moral arguments against it.

> there isn’t even local appetite for it, yet alone global one.

I would think the majority of the population struggling to pay for groceries would disagree.

> And you’ll run into quick questions about inflations, every chart from UBI-lite era of COVID, and so on.

No reason to think UBI would cause inflation at all, actually.

In any case, this really is the answer. You're worried about disruption due to AI taking jobs, but the only reason there is a problem is because AI will drastically increase inequality by letting rich people and corps become even richer. You want to solve the issue, you solve the disparity by making them give back their fair share. Like I said, simple.