I mean, yes, but it's most valuable/impactful as a policy to those who are not working (for any reason). For instance, I make enough money that I probably won't

I mean, yes, but it's most valuable/impactful as a policy to those who are not working (for any reason). For instance, I make enough money that I probably won't even notice an additional minimum-wage-sized amount of money (especially at my tax bracket), so as a policy it won't affect my behavior one bit—unless I become either unable or unwilling to work, where the difference between zero and the minimum wage will become quite obvious. One of the key features of a UBI is that it's not a US-style welfare/disability/food-stamp program where there are tracked eligibility requirements and you can lose your eligibility. It's universal. It doesn't attempt to distinguish who is "really" unable to work. So in practice one of the most-affected categories under a UBI policy would be people unwilling to work. AOC's (internal, accidentally-posted) doc said this in an indelicate and politically incorrect way but it's not aiming for any policy goals that UBI advocates aren't also targeting.