Alaska has a variable annual payout, and while $1,900 a year is better than $0 a year, it has not led to economic/artistic/scientific revolutions described by basic income proponents.
Initially? Probably not for those in developed countries.
The median per-capita household income (per http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household..., as of 2013) is about $3k/yr. For half the people on the planet, $100/yr would make an appreciable difference in their purchasing power (more than 1/3 their monthly income).
Is that a practical amount? $100/yr for every person on the planet is less than 5% of the GDP of the US, and less than 1% of the global GDP (GWP). If the US was going to foot the bill alone (it shouldn't), it would be about a quarter of our tax revenues. Steep, but doesn't sound financially impossible (political and infrastructural issues may well be another matter).
The idea would be to increase taxes on companies hoarding profits due to increased automation (i.e. "tax the robots and give the money back to displaced humans"). Then you redistribute those profits back to the public by slowly (or quickly) adjusting the social security age down to birth (or age of majority) as revenue from taxing automation increases.
Not going to happen in our current political climate though.