It's a pity you don't still have Tim Worstall to point out the fundamental flaws in this argument far better than I can. But here goes:
There are only two possibilities:
1. We reach a world where all possible human desires can be fulfilled by machine without anyone needing to lift a finger. In which case we would have no need of money, which is basically a mechanism for rationing finite resources. (Fans of Iain M Banks may recognise this scenario.) Personally, I look forward to this Brave New World, but I'm not sure it will come about within the lifetime of anyone now living.
2. There remain unfulfilled human desires, in which case we need to pay others if we want them to work in order to bring them about. This is what usually happens in technological revolutions. Prior to the agricultural revolution, the great majority of humanity lived a hand to mouth existence on the land. Today (in developed countries) only about 1% work in agriculture, the remainder having been displaced by tractors, seed drills and combined harvesters. Yet we don't have huge mobs of unemployed roaming the countryside, do we? They found alternative employment, at first in the factories of the early industrial towns, but these jobs in turn are now being automated away to be replaced by others.
Basic Income is a perfectly sensible idea, BTW, just not for any of the reasons advanced in the article.